Linking leadership empowermentbehaviour to employee attitudes

and behavioural intentionsTesting the mediating role of psychological

empowerment

Koen Dewettinck and Maaike van AmeijdeVlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Ghent, Belgium

Abstract

Purpose – This study aims to investigate the relationship between leadership empowermentbehaviour (LEB), employee psychological empowerment and employee attitudes (affectivecommitment and job satisfaction) and behavioural intentions (intention to stay).

Design/methodology/approach – The hypotheses were simultaneously tested on a sample of 380frontline service employees, using structural equation modeling.

Findings – The paper found a direct relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour andjob satisfaction and affective commitment. Psychological empowerment partially mediates theserelationships. Employee attitudes were also shown to be related to intention to stay.

Research limitations/implications – This study provides validation of the LEB construct in anindividualized working context and suggests that psychological empowerment is a relevant constructto link LEB to employee attitudes and behavioural intentions. The cross-sectional nature of this studyrestricts the clear pinpointing of temporal causal relationships within the empowerment process.Furthermore, common method bias might have inflated correlations between constructs.

Practical implications – The LEB dimensions provide organizations with concrete behaviour thatleaders should emphasize in order to foster employee commitment, satisfaction and loyalty to thecompany.

Originality/value – This is the first paper that studies the relationship between leadershipempowerment behaviour and the multi-dimensional conceptualization of psychological empowerment.It aims to gain further insights into the relationship between structural and psychological perspectiveson empowerment and clarifies how these constructs relate to employee attitudes and behaviouralintentions.

Keywords Leadership, Empowerment, Job satisfaction, Employee attitudes, Employee behaviour

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIn the past few decades, a complex set of socio-economic pressures, such as theintensifying global economic competition, advances in technology and the shift to aservice-oriented economy, have forced organizations to shift towards more decentralizedstructures where employees are encouraged to take on more responsibilities (Houghtonand Yoho, 2005; Ahearne et al., 2005). Given this new organizational reality, boththeorists and academics have argued that hierarchical structures and leadershiptechniques which have traditionally dominated management practices should becomplemented with management practices aimed at the empowerment of employees

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

PR40,3

284

Received 26 February 2008Revised March 2008Accepted 19 June 2010

Personnel ReviewVol. 40 No. 3, 2011pp. 284-305q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0048-3486DOI 10.1108/00483481111118621

(e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Forrester, 2000). This has resulted in a greater focus onempowering leadership concepts such as participative management, self-leadership andemployee empowerment (e.g. Manz and Sims, 2001; Pearce et al., 2003; Houghton andYoho, 2005). In practice the benefits of employee empowerment have not always beenrealised. It has been argued that the problem is often in the implementation ofempowerment practices and the shaping of new leadership roles required for anempowerment approach. If managed effectively, leadership can be an important driverof the success of empowered organizations (Ahearne et al., 2005).

Despite the extensive theoretical work on the importance of empowering practicesand structures in general, empirical work that identifies the specific leader behavioursand management skills that are required in empowered contexts remains scarce(Arnold et al., 2000). In a recent study by Arnold et al. (2000) the construct leadershipempowerment behaviour (LEB) has been introduced to represent the unique roles andresponsibilities of leaders in empowered work contexts. In our research we will furtherexplore the potential value and relevance of this construct.

In their study Arnold et al. (2000) stress the importance of further research towardsthe relationships between LEB, empowerment and work outcome variables. Oneoutcome variable that has gained in importance over the past few decades is (voluntary)employee turnover. For many organizations turnover can be very costly (Van Dick et al.,2004). Theorists have tried to explain turnover with a number of concepts, but some ofthe psychological processes underlying the withdrawal from the organization still haveto be unravelled. In line with previous research (e.g. Griffeth et al., 2000), job satisfactionand affective commitment will be considered as antecedents of turnover. Intention tostay or leave a job has now been widely recognized as the final cognitive step in thedecision making process of voluntary turnover (Lambert et al., 2001; Lee and Mowday,1987), therefore intention to stay will be our final outcome variable. Our research aims toprovide a more comprehensive view on the processes leading to employee retention. Wewill investigate the role of empowerment practices and processes and employeeattitudes here in. Research in the sales field (Jones et al., 2001) has already demonstratedthe direct and indirect impact of leadership behaviour on job satisfaction, the latterinfluencing intention to leave and actual turnover.

In particular, our model relates the construct of psychological empowerment toemployee attitudes such as job satisfaction and affective organisational commitment.Employee commitment can vary from basic behavioural commitment, where thefollower simply obeys the instructions of the leader, to a deep affective commitmentwhere the follower identifies and involves himself with the organization (Meyer andAllen, 1991; Mowday et al., 1979). This research will follow this latter definition. Jobsatisfaction on the other hand can be defined as an attitude towards specific aspects ofthe job and tasks such as the quality of supervisor support (Van Dick et al., 2004).Several studies have already examined the relationships between the four distinctdimensions of psychological empowerment and job satisfaction and commitment (e.g.Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Thomas and Tymon, 1994; Spreitzer et al., 1997). In theconceptual work on empowerment, it has been argued however that the fourdimensions only produce the proactive essence of employee empowerment when theyact simultaneously and reinforce each other. Therefore, we will consider thepsychological empowerment construct as a single, integrated construct.

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

285

This research is, as far as we know, the first to study the relationship between LEBand the multi-dimensional conceptualization of psychological empowerment. As such,our study contributes both to the further validation of these constructs as to researchon the relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour (the structural view ofempowerment) and psychological empowerment (the psychological view ofempowerment). As to date integrative research investigating the relationshipbetween the structural and psychological approach to empowerment is relativelyscarce (Seibert et al., 2004). The reason is that recent empowerment literature hasfollowed the general trend in OB research to emphasize the role of the individual andhas thereby mainly focused on psychological empowerment. This study aims toestablish a relationship between both perspectives on empowerment.

As mentioned above one of the aims of this study is to further validate the constructof leadership empowerment behaviour as identified by Arnold et al. (2000). The focushereby will be on the applicability of the LEB construct in more individualized workingcontexts, where Arnold et al. (2000) concentrated on the empowered team context.Moreover, this research will look at service-oriented environments and morespecifically at frontline employees and managers. We argue that it is essential to studythe concept of LEB in more detail for frontline managers since they have often beendescribed as the “forgotten supervisors” or “lost managers”. Especially in light of thetrend “returning HRM to the line” with increasing people management responsibilitiesfor direct supervisors – which are not necessarily complemented with the right level oftraining, time, interest and priorities given to this group – we cannot neglect theirimpact (Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007). We further would like to contribute to theresearch field by adopting Spreitzer’s (1995) broader conceptualization of thepsychological empowerment concept (meaning, competence, self-determination andimpact) in order to enable integrated conclusions regarding the relationships betweenleadership techniques and psychological empowerment, since previous research hasoften adopted a narrow definition of the concept of empowerment, focusing on only alimited set of indicators instead of on its multiple dimensions (e.g. Kark et al., 2003;Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Ugboro and Obeng, 2000). As mentioned by Spreitzer(1995), building on the work of Thomas and Velthouse (1990), “The four dimensionsare argued to combine additively to create an overall construct of psychologicalempowerment. In other words, the lack of any single dimensions will deflate, thoughnot completely eliminate, the overall degree of felt empowerment.“ (Spreitzer, 1995,p. 1444)

Before elaborating on the theoretical background, we present an overview of ourmodel, along with the hypothesized relationships in Figure 1.

Figure 1.Conceptual framework

PR40,3

286

TheoryA typology of leadership approachesThere is an extensive body of research looking into different models of leadershipdefining a broad range of effective behaviours for leaders. An historical analysis byPearce et al. (2003) provides a typology distinguishing four main leadership types eachfocussing on a specific set of behaviours: directive, transactional, transformational andempowering leadership. In theory the differences between the four types are clear.Directive leadership refers to behaviours that are primarily associated withtask-focused directions such as issuing instructions and assigning goals.Transactional leadership focuses on the creation of reward contingencies andexchange relationships leading to a calculative compliance of the follower and includesbehaviours such as the use of personal or material rewards. Transformationalleadership involves the creation and communication of a vision in a charismatic wayleading to emotional commitment from the followers emphasising behaviours such asproviding a sense of vision, engaging of idealism and providing stimulation andinspiration. Finally, empowering leadership is aimed at the self-development offollowers encouraging behaviours such as self-leadership, participative goal settingand teamwork (e.g. Pearce et al., 2003; Houghton and Yoho, 2005). Although it is notargued that the behaviours of directive, transactional and transformational leadershipbecome irrelevant in empowered work environments, the aim of this research lies inestablishing a link between leadership behaviour and psychological empowerment orself-management in empowered work environments and therefore the construct ofempowering leadership is most suited in developing both theory and research.

The growing interest in empowering leadership is resembled by the popularity ofnew streams of research as self-leadership and participative management (Houghtonand Yoho, 2005). The self-leadership concept was first introduced in 1983 and stressedthe importance of self-influence processes to help people achieve self-direction andself-motivation enabling them to perform their jobs (Neck and Houghton, 2006).Self-leadership is defined as a systematic set of strategies through which individualsinfluence themselves toward higher levels of performance and effectiveness (Manz,1986). This theory was mainly applied in the fields of self-managing teams andempowering leadership. In particular the empowerment literature has focused onSuperLeadership, leading others to lead themselves, as a concept to empower followersand to create self-leaders (Pearce et al., 2003; Houghton and Yoho, 2005; Neck andHoughton, 2006). Manz and Sims (1987) suggest in their research that the mosteffective external leaders of self-managing teams are those that engage in behavioursthat facilitate self-leadership within the teams.

The historical basis of empowering leadership can be traced back to models likeBandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and participative goal setting research. Socialcognitive theory has, for example, stated that there is a triadic and reciprocalrelationship between an individual’s cognitive processes, his behaviour and hisenvironment. This implicates the need for leaders to encourage followers to useself-leadership strategies (Houghton and Yoho, 2005) and to model appropriateself-leadership behaviour which can then be subsequently adopted by the followers(Manz and Sims, 2001). Empowering leadership can also be complementary toparticipative goal setting theory since self-management skills may be a clearadded-value for setting appropriate goals (Pearce et al., 2003).

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

287

Perspectives on empowermentIn this study we adopt Spreitzer’s (1995, p. 1443) definition of psychologicalempowerment as “increased intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of fourcognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role: competence,impact, meaning and self-determination”. Two general perspectives on empowermentcan be derived from the literature:

(1) a macro perspective, considering the various organizational empoweringstructures and policies (such as the managerial role); and

(2) a micro perspective, focusing on empowerment as a specific form of intrinsicmotivation at the level of the employee (Liden and Arad, 1996).

Although both perspectives are considered to be complementary, prior research thathas tried to link them is relatively scarce. In the present study, we aim to develop andtest a model that addresses the relationship between the macro perspective and microperspective of empowerment.

The first perspective, i.e. the macro perspective or the structural view, hasconcentrated on organizational and managerial practices aimed at empoweringemployees at lower organizational levels. As such, the notion of empowerment differsfrom traditional practices in the sense that it involves the delegation ofdecision-making responsibilities and the provision of access to information andresources to the lowest possible hierarchical level (Bowen and Lawler, 1992, 1995;Rothstein, 1995). Central to the notion of structural empowerment is that it entails theinstallation of empowering organization configurations and specific managerialbehaviours and skills, such as the delegation of decision-making prerogatives toemployees, along with giving employees the discretion to act on their own (Mills andUngson, 2003). It can be argued that leadership empowerment behaviour or LEB is acentral element of structural empowerment, since this concept recognises theimportance of the role of the leader in shaping the structures of the organization.

A second perspective on empowerment focuses on the perceptual or psychologicaldimensions of empowerment at the level of the individual employee (Liden et al., 2000).This perspective on empowerment concentrates on the individual experience ofempowerment, i.e. what individuals have to feel in order for interventions to becomeeffective rather than specific management practices intended to empower individuals(Spreitzer et al., 1997). Elaborating on the work of authors such as Conger and Kanungo(1988) and Spreitzer (1995) we distinguished four psychological empowermentdimensions, which reflect four distinct cognitions regarding employees’ orientationstowards their work. These four empowerment dimensions represent:

(1) meaningfulness, i.e. the value of a work goal or purpose, judged in relation to anemployee’s own ideals and standards;

(2) competence, i.e. an employee’s belief in his or her capability to perform taskactivities skilfully;

(3) self-determination, i.e. perception of autonomy in the initiation and continuationof work behaviours and processes; and

(4) impact, i.e. the degree to which an employee perceives being able to influencestrategic, administrative or operating outcomes at work.

PR40,3

288

Together, these four cognitions reflect an active, rather than a passive orientation to awork role. The four dimensions are argued to combine additively to create an overallconstruct of psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995).

As stated in the introduction little research has focused on the relationship betweenthese two perspectives on empowerment. One of the exceptions is a study byLaschinger et al. (2001) which revealed that psychological empowerment can beconsidered as an outcome of structural empowerment. In addition, a more recent studyby Seibert et al. (2004) linked structural empowerment climate to psychologicalempowerment, revealing that psychological empowerment mediates the relationshipbetween empowerment climate and individual job performance. These preliminaryresearch findings confirm the growing need to relate both views on empowerment, asboth forms of empowerment can complement each other in affecting employeebehaviours and attitudes.

Impact of leadership empowerment behaviour on psychological empowermentThere is an increasing awareness of the need for more research on the topic ofleadership in empowered organizations (Conger, 1989). The leadership requirements ofthe more traditional working environment are only partially relevant for theempowered work context (Ahearne et al., 2005). Researchers like Walton and Hackman(1986), Manz and Sims (1987), Conger and Kanungo (1988), Thomas and Velthouse(1990) and Neck and Houghton (2006) have all stated that leadership measures thatrelate to the more traditional directive leadership models do not encompass the fullspectrum of leadership behaviours required in empowered working contexts.

Although there is a growing theoretical interest in empowering leadership, researchon the actual practices that leaders should employ to create a sense of empowerment aswell as the contexts most suited for these practices has been limited (Conger, 1989).This empirical shortcoming has been recognised by Arnold et al. (2000) and they haveintroduced the construct of leadership empowerment behaviour (LEB) to empiricallyjustify the unique role of leaders in empowered contexts. They constructed a scale formeasuring LEB identifying and validating five factors reflecting empoweringleadership, i.e. coaching (the degree to which a leader supports employee development);informing (the degree to which a leader informs employees about company rules anddecisions); leading by example (the extent to which the leader acts as an example forthe team); showing concern/interacting with the team (the degree to which the leader isgenuinely concerned about team members’ wellbeing); and finally participativedecision-making (the extent to which the leader takes team members’ comments intoaccount and involves team members in decision making).

The construct of leadership empowerment behaviour is expected to contribute toempowerment by affecting the individual or team perception of meaning, competence,self-determination and/or impact (Spreitzer, 1996). As stated above, research on therelationship between LEB and psychological empowerment is scarce. Bandura’s (1986)social cognitive theory, stating that empowerment-related dimensions can beinfluenced by providing emotional support, words of encouragement, positivepersuasion, models of success and the experience of mastering a task with success,provides theoretical support for these five dimensions of LEB. The same applies for theparticipative goal setting research, where it is assumed that participative decisionmaking will stimulate self-management skills (Pearce et al., 2003). Recent findings by

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

289

Houghton and Yoho (2005) lead to the proposition that empowering leadership (asopposed to directive and transactional leadership) leads to higher levels ofpsychological empowerment among followers and urges researchers to furtherempirically justify this relationship. This line of thought is followed by Manz and Sims(2001) arguing that empowering leadership will most likely result in high levels ofempowerment, while directive and transactional leadership will result in low levels ofempowerment. Preliminary research by Irvine et al. (1999) has been able to confirm thisproposition by linking employee empowerment to an empowering leadership style.Based on these arguments, we expect that LEB will be positively related to employeepsychological empowerment:

H1. LEB will be positively related to employee psychological empowerment.

Impact of psychological empowerment on job satisfaction and affective commitmentA growing body of research has demonstrated the link between employeeempowerment and work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction and affectivecommitment (e.g. Spreitzer, 1995; Liden et al., 2000). The relationship betweenpsychological empowerment and job satisfaction has been researched most frequently(e.g. Seibert et al., 2004; Koberg et al., 1999; Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997;Thomas and Tymon, 1994). Spreitzer et al. (1997) found a positive link between all fourdimensions of psychological empowerment and job satisfaction, where the correlationwas strongest for the dimension meaningfulness. Research by Liden and colleaguesconfirmed the relationship of the dimensions competence and meaningfulness with jobsatisfaction, where research by Thomas and Tymon (1994) related impact,meaningfulness and choice (conceptually related to the dimension self-determinationof Spreitzer) to job satisfaction.

The importance of a personally meaningful job for the employee’s satisfaction hasalready been noted by theorists such as Herzberg et al. (1959) and Hackman andOldham (1980). The underlying argument is that employees who perceive their jobs tobe significant and worthwhile feel higher levels of work satisfaction than employeeswho see their jobs as having little value. This is consistent with Locke‘s notion ofpersonal value fulfilment, which is based on the belief that work satisfaction resultsfrom the perception that one’s work fulfils or allows the fulfilment of one’s desiredwork values. Theory further indicates that employees who feel confident that they willsucceed are happier with their work than employees who fear that they might fail(Martinko and Gardner, 1982). As task autonomy and decision-making latitude,self-determination gives the individuals a sense of control over their work causingthem to attribute more of the work to themselves than to other individuals resulting inmore satisfaction (Thomas and Tymon, 1994). Finally, theory on the impact dimensionstates that individuals should get a sense of job satisfaction when they feel that theyhave been directly involved in outcomes that affect the organization (Ashforth, 1989).

These arguments give theoretical and empirical support for the relationshipbetween the dimensions of psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. Wetherefore expect to find a positive relationship between the overall construct ofpsychological empowerment and job satisfaction:

H2a. Psychological empowerment will be positively related to job satisfaction.

PR40,3

290

Research has also examined, although to a lesser extent, the relationship betweenpsychological empowerment and (affective) commitment. Affective commitmentdifferentiates from other forms of commitment like continuance and normativecommitment because it reflects a deep relationship between the employee and theorganization. This is in contrast with continuance commitment which is based more ona financial need to stay with the organization and normative commitment whichfocuses more on feelings of obligation to stay involved in the organization (Meyer andAllen, 1991; Mowday et al., 1979). The relationship between psychologicalempowerment and commitment has been demonstrated in various studies and themeaning dimension has been specifically linked to organizational commitment (e.g.Liden et al., 2000).

Mento et al. (1980) and Liden et al. (2000) argue that a sense of meaning in the jobcontributes to a higher level of (affective) commitment. The theoretical argumentbehind this relation can be found in social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity(e.g. Gouldner, 1960; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Social exchange theory arguesthat relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal and mutual commitments. Thisstate is achieved if both leader and follower abide by certain rules or norms. The normof reciprocity is probably the most popular exchange rule where reciprocity has beenlooked at as a culture mandate. Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005, p 877) describe a normin this form as “a norm that describes how one should behave and those who followthese norms are obligated to behave reciprocally”. Gouldner (1960) has proposed thisnorm is universally applicable and this view has been widely adopted. Generally, it isassumed that social exchange relationships are established when leaders take care oftheir followers by providing them for example with the needed support. These strongrelations in turn lead to effective work behaviour and positive employee attitudes suchas commitment (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). It could thus be argued thatempowerment contributes to a sense of affective commitment to the organizationthrough a process of reciprocation. Employees who appreciate decision latitude,challenge and responsibility as well as the feelings of meaning, impact,self-determination and mastery that result from these conditions, are more likely toreciprocate by feeling more deeply committed to the organization.

Based on the theoretical arguments of social exchange theory and the norm ofreciprocity we expect to find a positive relationship between psychologicalempowerment and affective commitment:

H2b. Psychological empowerment will be positively related to affectivecommitment.

Mediating role of psychological empowerment between leadership empowermentbehaviour and job satisfaction and affective commitmentAccumulating evidence suggests that empowerment, both organizational (leadershipempowerment behaviour) and individual (psychological empowerment), is positivelyassociated with individual attitudes and behaviours (e.g. Seibert et al., 2004; Liden et al.,2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Sparrowe, 1994; Conger and Kanungo, 1988). For example,Lee and Koh (2001) state that empowering practices and psychological empowermentcan be seen as the respective cause and effect of empowerment insinuating that leaderscan have an influence on the empowering experiences of the subordinates. A study byDeci et al. (1989) suggests as well that the behaviour of the supervisor plays a vital role in

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

291

providing followers with empowering experiences, which in turn contribute to thelatter’s feeling of self-worth and sense of self-determination. However, the exactmechanisms by which empowering leaders impact their followers’ motivation andperformance have not yet been fully empirically addressed. To our knowledge no studieshave explored the mediating relationship of psychological empowerment betweenleadership empowerment behaviour and employee attitudes and only a limited numberof studies have been able to empirically justify a mediating role of psychologicalempowerment between leadership, mostly transformational, and employee outcomes.

Research by Avolio et al. (2004) showed that psychological empowerment modestlymediated the relationship between transformational leadership and organizationalcommitment and research by Huang et al. (2006) only partially succeeded in replicatingthese findings in a Chinese setting. Seibert et al. (2004) took a broader perspective andsuccessfully demonstrated the mediating role of psychological empowerment in therelationship between empowering climate (conceptualized as organizationalempowerment) and job performance. These findings suggest that psychologicalempowerment is likely to foster the link between (empowering) leadership behaviourand employee outcomes as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. We haveformulated our conceptual model in such a way that it will allow us to empirically testthe relationship between empowering leadership behaviour and job satisfaction andaffective commitment via psychological empowerment. We have set up a hypothesisfor job satisfaction and organizational commitment because previous research findingsare mixed:

H3a. Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship betweenleadership empowerment behaviour and job satisfaction.

H3b. Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship betweenleadership empowerment behaviour and affective commitment.

Impact of affective commitment and job satisfaction on intention to stayThe relation between employee attitudes and turnover has been subject of multipleresearch papers (e.g. Griffeth et al., 2000; Hom and Kinicki, 2001; Porter et al., 1974).Although the direct relationship between job attitudes and turnover is considered to bemodest, a meta-analysis of Griffeth et al. (2000) shows that the strongest predictivevalue comes from organizational commitment (r ¼ 20:23) and job satisfaction(r ¼ 20:19). Already in the seventies a longitudinal study of Porter et al. (1974)demonstrated the relationship between employee attitudes such as job satisfaction andcommitment and turnover. In particular, their research showed that organizationalcommitment was a better discriminator between stayers and leavers than jobsatisfaction. A more recent study by Van Dick et al. (2004) looked more specifically atan employee’s intention to leave rather than actual turnover. Their study provides alink between organizational identification, job satisfaction and turnover intentionacross multiple samples. The meta-analysis of Griffeth et al. (2000) also argues thatturnover intentions remain the best predictor of actual turnover (r ¼ 0:38) insinuatingthat intention to stay may be a crucial variable in the processes leading to turnover.Overall, theorists confirm that the intention to stay or leave is the final cognitive step inthe decision-making process of voluntary turnover (Lambert et al., 2001; Hom andGriffeth, 1995; Lee and Mowday, 1987).

PR40,3

292

Theory has provided several models to explain the processes by which an employeeleaves the organization and research has started to empirically justify these models. Asone of the first, Mobley (1977) proposed a very detailed process where job satisfactionis ultimately linked with turnover. Some of the intermediate linkages between jobsatisfaction and turnover are thinking of leaving, searching for alternatives,comparison of alternatives and present job and intention to leave (Lee and Mowday,1987). Another known model is of Price (1977) and suggests that an employee’sdecision to leave the organization is an immediate result of the interaction between jobsatisfaction and job opportunities. One of the more recent models is probably of Steersand Mowday (1981) and is closest aligned to the conceptual model in this research.They have also set up a sequence of variables to explain an employee’s staying with orleaving an organization. In short, their model states that job expectations and valuesinfluence affective responses as job satisfaction and affective commitment (Steers andMowday, 1981). These in turn influence the intent to quit or stay with the organizationleading to the individual’s actual staying or quitting behaviour (Lee and Mowday,1987). Michaels and Spector (1982) partially tested these models and their resultsshowed that job satisfaction and organizational commitment were intermediateantecedents of intention to leave, the latter being an intermediate antecedent ofturnover (Lee and Mowday, 1987). A study of Stump and Hartman (1984) was able toreplicate these findings and suggested another intermediate link between intention toleave and actual turnover, namely environmental exploration. Further, Lee andMowday (1987) confirmed the link between job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment and turnover intentions where turnover intentions had a direct impact onturnover.

In sum, theory and empirical studies strongly suggest that employee attitudes suchas job satisfaction and affective commitment influence the employee’s intent anddecision to stay or quit the organization. Most of the empirical research has examinedthe negative implications of job satisfaction and commitment on turnover, mostlytaking intention to quit or stay as a mediating variable. This research will test thepositive impact of job satisfaction and commitment on the employee’s intent to staywith the organization:

H4a. Job satisfaction will be positively related to intention to stay.

In their meta-analysis Griffeth et al. (2000) are cautious to link general organizationalcommitment to intention to quit. In this study we will look at one specific type oforganizational commitment, affective commitment. This type of commitment isexpected to form the deepest relationships between employee and organization wherethe employee shows a strong concern for the wellbeing of the organization. Stronglyaffectively committed employees would thus be more inclined to stay with theorganization, which leads us to the following hypothesis:

H4b. Affective commitment will be positively related to intention to stay.

MethodSample and data collectionA web-based survey was administered during normal working hours to frontlineemployees in four service organizations active in people-related services such astemporary staffing and health insurance. All respondents spend considerable time in

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

293

direct contact with customers. To foster collaboration, one week prior to sending outour request to fill out the survey, respondents received a motivating mail from their HRdirector. Respondents were given two weeks to respond. After that time, a remindingmail was sent, again by the HR directors of the companies.

In total, 743 employees were invited to collaborate to the study and 413 surveyswere filled out of which 381 were useful for our analyses (no missing values) resultingin an overall response rate of 51 per cent. A majority of the respondents is female (73.4per cent), which reflects the gender composition of the workforce in these serviceorganizations. The average respondents’ age is between 31 and 35 years. A total of 1.1per cent holds a primary school diploma, 23 per cent a high school diploma, 48.5 percent a bachelor and 27.4 per cent a master degree. Average tenure is between six andten years.

MeasuresTable I provides the basic statistics and inter-correlations between the first orderconstructs included in our model. We discuss the measures below.

Leadership empowerment behaviour. The five dimensions of leadershipempowerment behaviour (leading by example, participative decision making,coaching, informing and showing concern/interacting with the team) were measuredusing the scales proposed by Arnold et al. (2000). Because their scales have beenoriginally developed to assess leadership empowering behaviour in a team context asopposed to in a more individualised context, we re-evaluated the psychometricproperties of the scales. Based on confirmatory factor analyses using structural equationmodeling, some items were deleted because of low loadings to the underlying construct,but in general the five factor structure found by Arnold et al. (2000) was confirmed. Alldimensions were rated on a five point response scale, where 1 ¼ “never” and 5 ¼“always” was used. The first LEB dimension, leading by example, was measured bythree items (e.g. “Sets high standards for performance by his/her own behaviour”). Thesecond LEB dimension, participative decision making was measured by five items (e.g.“Considers my work group’s ideas when he/she disagrees with them”). The third LEBdimension, coaching, was measured by 12 items (e.g. “Encourages work group membersto solve problems together”). The fourth dimension, informing, was measured by sixitems (e.g. “Explains how my work group fits into the company”) and the fifthdimension, showing concern/interacting with the team, was measured by eight items(e.g. “Takes the time to discuss work group member’s concerns patiently”). Cronbachalpha reliabilities for these scales ranged from 0.82 to 0.94.

Psychological empowerment. Psychological empowerment was measured by thescale developed by Spreitzer (1995). Each of the four empowerment dimensions (i.e.meaningfulness, competence, self-determination and impact) was measured by threeitems (e.g. “The work that I do is very important to me”). Items were rated on a fivepoint response scale, ranging from “totally dissatisfied” to “totally satisfied”.Reliabilities of these scales ranged from 0.83 to 0.91.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured by five items from Churchill et al.(1974) and Hartline and Ferrell (1993). These items (e.g. “Indicate how satisfied you arewith your co-workers”) tapped into different aspects of employee satisfaction such assatisfaction with the job in general or support from the organization. Items were rated

PR40,3

294

Var

iab

leM

SD

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1.L

ead

ing

by

exam

ple

3.43

0.85

0.82

a

2.P

arti

cip

atio

n3.

720.

750.

41b

0.88

3.C

oach

ing

3.49

0.77

0.59

0.69

0.94

4.In

form

ing

3.41

0.84

0.51

0.58

0.71

0.94

5.C

once

rn/i

nte

ract

ing

3.57

0.78

0.46

0.67

0.72

0.56

0.92

6.M

ean

ing

4.20

0.69

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.30

0.28

0.83

7.C

omp

eten

ce4.

110.

640.

080.

140.

120.

110.

210.

480.

868.

Sel

fd

eter

min

atio

n3.

820.

780.

240.

370.

320.

300.

360.

480.

390.

879.

Imp

act

3.32

0.81

0.24

0.35

0.29

0.31

0.30

0.49

0.33

0.60

0.91

10.

Job

sati

sfac

tion

3.52

0.57

0.38

0.42

0.53

0.49

0.50

0.42

0.23

0.36

0.38

0.78

11.

Aff

ecti

ve

com

mit

men

t3.

610.

710.

230.

230.

320.

310.

310.

480.

250.

270.

340.

690.

9112

.In

ten

tion

tost

ay4.

240.

930.

190.

180.

150.

130.

220.

240.

180.

100.

210.

470.

400.

92

Notes:

a¼

En

trie

son

the

dia

gon

alar

eC

ron

bac

h’s

alp

has

;b¼

Cor

rela

tion

s.

0.06

,p,

0.05

;co

rrel

atio

ns.

0.09

,p,

0.01

;co

rrel

atio

ns.

0.10

,p,

0.00

1;N

¼38

0.C

onst

ruct

mea

nan

dst

and

ard

dev

iati

onb

ased

onav

erag

em

ean

and

stan

dar

dd

evia

tion

ofob

serv

edit

ems’

raw

scor

ep

erfi

rst

ord

erco

nst

ruct

Table I.Means, standard

deviations andcorrelations among first

order constructs

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

295

on a five point scale, ranging from “totally dissatisfied” to “totally satisfied”. Reliabilityfor the scale (Cronbach’s alpha) in this sample was 0.78.

Affective commitment. Affective commitment was measured by seven items (e.g. “Italk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for”) from theOrganizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday et al., 1979). These items reflectthe affective component of organizational commitment. Items were rated on a five pointLikert scale, ranging from “totally disagree” to “totally agree”. Reliability for the scale(Cronbach’s alpha) in this sample was 0.91.

Intention to stay. Intention to stay was measured by five items (e.g. “What’s thechance that you will be working for this company in one year?”) adapted fromBluedorn (1982). Items were rated on a five point response scale, ranging from “verysmall” to “almost sure”. Reliability for the scale (Cronbach’s alpha) in this sample was0.92.

AnalysisTo ensure that latent constructs are adequately measured, we assessed themeasurement properties by examining the factor structure underlying the items andthe correlations between the constructs. We also tested our measurement modelthrough confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS (all variables and latent constructsincluded in the model and covariance relationships specified between the latentconstructs). The hypotheses were simultaneously tested in a structural model, usingmaximum likelihood estimation in AMOS (Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999). The outcomevariables were represented by two standardized, randomly composed, compositeindicators (see, e.g. Little et al., 2002; Sass and Smith, 2006). As recommended byGerbing and Anderson (1988), we assessed the unidimensionality of these variablesbefore parcelling the items. For the multidimensional constructs (LEB andpsychological empowerment) we consistently found a better fit for the multi-factormodels. Consequently we used separate indicators for each of the underlyingdimensions for these constructs. Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) hasseveral advantages. First, it provides a systematic basis for evaluating the “fit” of thehypothesized model to data based on a x2-statistic, incremental fit indices (e.g.non-normed-fit-index, comparative fit index) and other indicators of absolute fitincluding Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (MacCallum and Austin, 2000).Second, it provides control over measurement error that can constitute over 50 percentof the observed variance and often introduces substantial bias in estimated effects andhypothesis testing (Ping, 2001).

ResultsIn terms of overall fit, Table II reveals the following fit statistics: x2 ¼ 228:25, df ¼ 82,p , 0:001, GFI ¼ 0:93, NFI ¼ 0:93, NNFI ¼ 0:94, CFI ¼ 0:95, RMR ¼ 0:03,RMSEA ¼ 0:07 (90% CI ¼ 0:06 to 0.08). The relative fit indicators exceed 0.92 andthe absolute fit indicators suggest that the residuals are small and tightly distributed.Consistent with this, the parsimony fit indicator, NNFI, exceeds 0.94, indicating thatthe model has adequate over-identifying restrictions for parsimony. Based on thesestatistics, we conclude that our model provides an adequate fit to the data.

The path coefficients enable us to draw some conclusions concerning thehypothesized relationships. H1 theorised that LEB would be positively related to

PR40,3

296

Dep

end

ent

var

iab

leP

sych

olog

ical

emp

ower

men

tJo

bsa

tisf

acti

onA

ffec

tiv

eco

mm

itm

ent

Inte

nti

onto

stay

Ind

epen

den

tv

aria

ble

l(S

E)

t-v

alu

el

(SE

)t-

val

ue

l(S

E)

t-v

alu

el

(SE

)t-

val

ue

LE

B0.

51(0

.07)

7.29

**

0.75

(0.0

9)8.

33*

*0.

27(0

.09)

3.00

*–

Psy

chol

ogic

alem

pow

erm

ent

–0.

22(0

.06)

3.67

*0.

69(0

.09)

7.67

**

–Jo

bsa

tisf

acti

on–

––

0.57

(0.1

4)4.

07*

*

Aff

ecti

ve

com

mit

men

t–

––

0.30

(0.1

0)3.

00*

R2

0.2

50.6

50.3

60.2

4

Notes:

*¼

p#

0.01

(cri

tica

lt-

val

ue¼

2.33

);*

*¼

p#

0.00

1(c

riti

cal

t-v

alu

e¼

3.14

)–¼

rela

tion

ship

not

hy

pot

hes

ized

/sp

ecifi

ed;

Fit

:x

2¼

228.

25,

df¼

82(p

,0.

001)

,G

FI¼

0.93

,N

FI¼

0.93

,N

NF

I¼

0.94

,C

FI¼

0.95

,R

MR¼

0.03

,R

MS

EA¼

0.07

(90%

CI¼

0.06

to0.

08)

Table II.Estimated parameters

and fit statistics for thestructural model

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

297

psychological empowerment. Our structural model supports this hypothesis (l ¼ 0:50;p # 0:01). As can be seen in Table II, LEB has a direct effect on job satisfaction(l ¼ 0:69; p # 0:01) and affective commitment (l ¼ 0:19; p # 0:01) as well. Therelationships between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction was alsoconfirmed (H2a: l ¼ 0:20; p # 0:01) as well as the relationship between psychologicalempowerment and affective commitment (H2b: l ¼ 0:48; p # 0:01).

To assess the mediating role of psychological empowerment in linking LEB to theattitude constructs, we tested multiple competing nested structural models. The firstmodel is the one presented before, including both the mediating paths throughpsychological empowerment and the direct paths between LEB and the attitudeconstructs. In a second model, we constrained the path between LEB and affectivecommitment. In a third model, we constrained the path between LEB and jobsatisfaction. These analyses enabled us to assess whether psychological empowermentis a fully or partially mediating variable.

Table III presents the changes in x2 between our hypothesized and two alternativemodels. The results show that the partially mediating model provides a significantlybetter fit than the two constrained models. The results also indicate that psychologicalempowerment is a stronger mediator of the relationship between LEB and affectivecommitment. The direct relationship between LEB and job satisfaction remains strongwhen the mediating path is included in the model. Thus, generally, H3a and H3b arepartially supported. H4a and H4b test the relationships between job satisfaction (H4a),affective commitment (H4b) and intention to stay. The structural model providessupport for the relationship between job satisfaction (H4a: l ¼ 0:31; p # 0:01),affective commitment (H4b: l ¼ 0:21; p # 0:01) and intention to stay.

Overall these results indicate support for the conceptual model that was put forwardin our theoretical framework. Leadership empowerment behaviour enhancespsychological empowerment, which in turn influences job satisfaction and affectivecommitment. Although we found direct relationships between LEB and jobsatisfaction and affective commitment, part of these effects are mediated bypsychological empowerment. Psychological empowerment can thus be seen as apartially mediating variable between LEB and employee attitudes. Finally, our modelindicates a direct relationship between affective commitment and job satisfaction andintention to stay.

DiscussionThe overall aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between leadershipempowerment behaviour, employee psychological empowerment and employeeattitudes and behavioural intentions. Below, we discuss some noteworthy

x 2 df Dx 2 Conclusion

Baseline model: partially mediating model 228.25 82Alternative model 1: full mediation LEB !psych. emp. ! affective commitment 238.48 83 10.23

Worse fit than baseline model(p # 0:01)

Alternative model 2: full mediation LEB !psych. emp ! job satisfaction 380.81 83 152.56

Worse fit than baseline model(p # 0:001)

Table III.Comparison of the fullyand partially mediatingmodels

PR40,3

298

implications of this study and its findings. First, as suggested by Arnold et al. (2000),we provide further validation of the LEB construct in an individualized workingcontext. The psychometric properties of the LEB scale and its sub-dimensions areshown to be solid and generalizable across different working contexts. While Arnold’soriginal study assessed leadership empowerment behaviour in a team context, ourstudy indicates that the instrument is also useful in working context where teamworkis not a core feature of the job. Moreover, it demonstrates the relevance of leadershipempowerment behaviour for front line managers.

Second, our study indicates that psychological empowerment is a relevant constructto at least partially explain how leadership empowerment behaviour relates toemployee job satisfaction and affective commitment. Research focusing on therelationship between leadership and employee motivation traditionally makes a strictdistinction between intrinsic motivation and contextual elements. Intrinsic motivationis assumed to be influenced mainly by personal and job content characteristics such astask identity, skill variety, task significance and feedback (Hackman and Oldham,1976). Contextual elements, such as leadership characteristics, are generally assumedto function as moderating variables in explaining how individual cognitions and affectrelate to employee attitudes and behaviour. Our findings suggest however thatleadership empowerment behaviour, which is a contextual element, is a factor thatshould not be neglected in theorizing on how intrinsic motivation takes shape. Thissuggests, in line with Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 2001)that intrapersonal cognitive and motivational processes can be substantiallyinfluenced by environmental factors, such as leadership characteristics.

Third, the results indicate a direct relationship between leadership empowermentbehaviour and job satisfaction and affective commitment. A comparison of the directand indirect relationships between those variables suggests that psychologicalempowerment seems especially relevant in explaining the relationship between LEBand affective commitment.

Fourth, our study confirms the importance of employee job satisfaction andaffective commitment in explaining employee loyalty to the company. Job satisfactionseems to be a more important antecedent of intention to stay than the affectivecommitment component of organizational commitment. This suggests that the natureof the relationship between supervisors and employees has a stronger impact onemployees’ decision to stay with a company than the extent to which they identifythemselves with the organization. These findings are interesting in the light ofprevious research, where mixed results have been found on the impact of jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment and their relative predictive strength (e.g.Griffeth et al., 2000). Our study demonstrates that job satisfaction is a key variablebetween the work environment characteristics and turnover intentions (Lambert et al.,2001). By shaping this direct work environment leaders are able to increase satisfactionlevels, and to ultimately lower turnover intent.

Study limitationsTo put this article’s findings and implications in the right perspective, it is important todiscuss the study limitations. First, common-method variance may have biased thevalidity of the structural relationships. Common-method bias is likely to uniformlyinflate correlations between constructs and thus the strength of the relationships found

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

299

between them. Common method seems however less problematic when interpreting therelative strength of relationships between constructs, especially when they aresimultaneously assessed in a structural model. To assess the extent to which commonmethod variance may be a problem, we conducted Harman’s single factor test forcommon method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The number of unrotated factors thatappeared to be necessary to account for the variance is 13, together accounting for 71per cent of the variance in the variables. Furthermore, our structural model, in whichwe simultaneously tested the measurement properties of our model, provided a good fitto the data.

Another limitation of our study is its cross-sectional nature. This restricts us fromclearly pinpointing the temporally causal relationships within the process ofempowerment and its influence on employee attitudes and behavioural intentions.Additional studies that use longitudinal or field experimental design to account formore rigorous tests of causality are therefore needed.

A third important limitation is that data for our empirical test were provided byfrontline service employees from four Belgian service companies. Consequently, moreresearch in distinct employee samples (e.g. non-frontline jobs) and other businesscontexts is needed to check the generalizability of our findings.

Managerial implicationsEmployee empowerment is of critical importance in today’s competitive workenvironment, since it can give a company a sustained competitive advantage. Thisstudy stresses the importance of leadership behaviour in such endeavours. We showthat empowering employees through (empowering) leadership behaviour is a valuableoption to increase frontline employee job satisfaction, affective commitment and theirintention to stay with the organization. Even more, the LEB construct captures realbehaviour (leading by example, participative decision making, coaching, informingand showing concern/interacting with the team) guiding and channelling leaders tobehave in more effective ways.

In this study we found a strong direct link between leadership empowermentbehaviour and employee attitudes. These findings indicate the important role ofleaders in directly shaping employee attitudes, especially job satisfaction. Leaders canthus be important for an organization to facilitate changes. In literature, leaders areoften described as the “forgotten group” (Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007; Ahearne et al.,2005). This study indicates however the important role of leaders in shaping employeework experiences.

The LEB dimensions provide organizations with concrete behaviour that leadersshould show in order to increase their employee’s feeling of empowerment, jobsatisfaction and affective commitment. For practitioners, this means that leadersshould emphasize leadership behaviours, such as leading by example, participativedecision making, coaching, informing and showing concern/interacting with the team.By giving examples leaders are able to model the preferred behaviour therebyincreasing role clarity and decreasing role conflict, two important antecedents ofemployee satisfaction (Jones et al., 2001). The involvement of employees in decisionmaking can increase their feelings of empowerment by showing that they have animpact on the processes within the organization. Coaching may provide guidance andclarification for employees thereby increasing their feelings of empowerment.

PR40,3

300

Informing your employees of organizational changes and how these changes affect theemployees keeps the employees connected with their workplace ( job satisfaction) andthe organization as a whole (affective commitment). By showing concern leaders areable to help them cope with private and organizational changes. Guidance, recognition,coaching, informing and support are thus all important behaviours to positivelyinfluence employee attitudes and employee intentions (Jones et al., 2001). The LEBassessment can function as a useful tool, as part of leadership developmentprogrammes, to increase supervisor effectiveness in fostering employee attitudes, andconsequently their loyalty to the company.

References

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, A. (2005), “To empower or not to empower your sales force?An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behaviour oncustomer satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 945-55.

Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999), AMOS 4 User’s Reference Guide, SmallwatersCorporation, Chicago, IL.

Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “The empowering leadershipquestionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leaderbehaviours”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 21, pp. 249-69.

Ashforth, B.E. (1989), “The experience of powerlessness in organizations”, OrganizationalBehaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 43, pp. 207-42.

Avolio, B., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), “Transformational leadership andorganizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment andmoderating role of structural distance”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 25,pp. 951-68.

Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change”, PsychologyReview, Vol. 84, pp. 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentive perspective”, Annual Review ofPsychology, Vol. 52, pp. 1-26.

Bluedorn, A.C. (1982), “The theories of turnover: causes, effects, and meaning”,in Bacharach, S.B. (Ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, JAI Press,Greenwich, CT.

Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. (1992), “The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how andwhen?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 31-9.

Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. (1995), “Organizing for service: empowerment or production line?”,in Glynn, W.J. and Barnes, J.G. (Eds), Understanding Services Management, John Wileyand Sons, Chichester, pp. 269-94.

Churchill, G.A., Ford, N.M. and Walker, O.C. (1974), “Measuring the job satisfaction of industrialsalesmen”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 254-60.

Conger, J.A. (1989), “Leadership: the art of empowering others”, Academy of ManagementExecutive, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 17-24.

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory andpractice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 471-82.

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

301

Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.

Deci, E.L., Conell, J.P. and Ryan, R.M. (1989), “Self-determination in a work organization”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 580-90.

Forrester, R. (2000), “Empowerment: rejuvenating a potent idea”, Academy of ManagementExecutive, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 67-80.

Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale developmentincorporating unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 25, pp. 186-92.

Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, AmericanSociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-78.

Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W. and Gaertner, S. (2000), “A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlatesof employee turnover: update, moderator tests and research implications for the nextmillennium”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 463-88.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of atheory”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-79.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Hartline, M.D. and Ferrell, O.C. (1993), “Service quality implementation: the effects oforganizational socialization and managerial actions on customer-contact employeebehaviours”, Report No. 93–122, Academy of Marketing Science, Cambridge.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, 2nd ed., John Wileyand Sons, New York, NY.

Hom, P.W. and Griffeth, R.W. (1995), Employee Turnover, South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.

Hom, P.W. and Kinicki, A.J. (2001), “Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfactiondrives employee turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 975-87.

Houghton, J.D. and Yoho, S.K. (2005), “Toward a contingency model of leadership andpsychological empowerment: when should self-leadership encouraged?”, Journal ofLeadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 65-83.

Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z. and Cheung, Y.L. (2006), “The impact of participative leadershipbehavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinesestate-owned enterprises: the moderating role of organizational tenure”, Asia Specific JManage, Vol. 23, pp. 345-67.

Irvine, D., Leatt, P., Evans, M.G. and Backer, R.G. (1999), “Measurement of staff empowermentwithin health service organizations”, Journal of Nursing Measurement, Vol. 7, pp. 79-96.

Jones, E., Kantak, D.M., Futrell, C.M. and Johnston, M.W. (2001), “Leader behaviour, workattitudes and turnover of salespeople: an integrative study”, Journal of Personal Sellingand Sales Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 13-23.

Kark, R., Shamir, B. and Chen, G. (2003), “The two faces of transformational leadership:empowerment and dependency”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 246-55.

Koberg, C.S., Boss, R.W., Senjem, J.C. and Goodman, E.A. (1999), “Antecedents and outcomes ofempowerment: empirical evidence from the healthcare industry”, Group and OrganizationManagement, Vol. 24, pp. 71-91.

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L. and Barton, S.M. (2001), “The impact of job satisfaction on turnoverintent: a test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers”,Social Science Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 233-51.

PR40,3

302

Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. (2001), “Impact of structural andpsychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: expanding Kanter’smodel”, Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 260-72.

Lee, M. and Koh, J. (2001), “Is empowerment really a new concept?”, International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, Vol. 12, pp. 684-95.

Lee, T.W. and Mowday, R.T. (1987), “Voluntarily leaving an organization: an empiricalinvestigation of Steers and Mowday’s model of turnover”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 721-43.

Liden, R.C. and Arad, S. (1996), “A power perspective of empowerment and work groups:implications for human resources management research”, Research in Personnel andHuman Resources Management, Vol. 14, pp. 205-51.

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000), “An examination of the mediating role ofpsychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationshipsand work outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 407-16.

Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G. and Widaman, K.F. (2002), “To parcel or not to parcel:exploring the question and weighing the merits”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9No. 2, pp. 151-73.

MacCallum, R.C. and Austin, J.T. (2000), “Application of structural equation modeling inpsychological research”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 201-26.

Manz, C.C. (1986), “Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes inorganizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 585-600.

Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1987), “Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadershipof self-managed work teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 106-28.

Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (2001), The New SuperLeadership: Leading Others to LeadThemselves, Berett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

Martinko, M.J. and Gardner, W.L. (1982), “Learned helplessness: an alternative explanation forperformance deficits”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, pp. 195-204.

Mento, A.J., Cartledge, N.D. and Locke, E.A. (1980), “Maryland vs Michigan vs Minnesota:another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty to task performance”,Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 419-40.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizationalcommitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 61-89.

Michaels, C.E. and Spector, P.E. (1982), “Causes of employee turnover: a test of the Mobley,Griffith, Hand, and Melingo model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 53-9.

Mills, P.K. and Ungson, G.R. (2003), “Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment:organizational constitution and trust as controls”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28No. 1, pp. 143-53.

Mobley, W.H. (1977), “Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction andemployee turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 237-40.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizationalcommitment”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47.

Neck, C.P. and Houghton, J.D. (2006), “Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: pastdevelopments, present trends and future possibilities”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 270-95.

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

303

Pearce, C.L., Sims, H.P. Jr, Cox, J.F., Ball, G., Schnell, K.A., Smith, K.A. and Trevino, L. (2003),“Transactors, transformers and beyond: a multi-method development of a theoreticaltypology of leadership”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 273-307.

Ping, R.A. (2001), “A suggested standard error for interaction coefficients in latent variableregression”, Academy of Marketing Science Conference Proceedings, Academy ofMarketing Science, Miami.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases inbehavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Bouilian, P.V. (1974), “Organizational commitment,job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.

Price, J.L. (1977), The Study of Turnover, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.

Purcell, J. and Hutchinson, S. (2007), “Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performancecausal chain: theory, analysis and evidence”, Human Resources Management Journal,Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-20.

Rothstein, L.R. (1995), “The empowerment effort that came undone”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 20-31.

Sass, D.A. and Smith, P.L. (2006), “The effects of parceling unidimensional scales on structuralparameter estimates in Structural Equation Modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling,Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 566-86.

Seibert, S.E., Silver, S.R. and Randolph, W.A. (2004), “Taking empowerment to the next level: amultiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 332-49.

Sparrowe, R.T. (1994), “Empowerment in the hospitality industry: an exploration of antecedentsand outcomes”, Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 51-73.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions,measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-65.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 483-504.

Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997), “A dimensional analysis of the relationshipbetween psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction and strain”, Journalof Management, Vol. 23, pp. 679-705.

Steers, R.M. and Mowday, R. (1981), “Employee turnover and post-decision accommodationprocesses”, Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 3, pp. 235-83.

Stump, S.A. and Hartman, K. (1984), “Individual exploration to organizational commitment orwithdrawal”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 308-29.

Thomas, K.W. and Tymon, W. (1994), “Does empowerment always work: understanding the roleof intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation”, Journal of Management Systems,Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-13.

Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 666-81.

Ugboro, I.O. and Obeng, K. (2000), “Top management leadership, employee empowerment, jobsatisfaction and customer satisfaction in TQM organizations: an empirical study”, Journalof Quality Management, Vol. 5, pp. 247-73.

PR40,3

304

Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., Hauptmeier, M.,Hohfeld, C., Moltzen, K. and Tissington, A. (2004), “Should I stay or should I go?Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction”,British Journal of Management, Vol. 15, pp. 351-60.

Walton, R.E. and Hackman, J.R. (1986), “Groups under contrasting management strategies”,in Goodman, P.S. and and Associates (Eds), Designing Effective Work Groups, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA, pp. 168-201.

About the authorsKoen Dewettinck is Associate Professor HRM at Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School,Ghent, Belgium. Koen Dewettinck is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:Koen.dewettinck@vlerick.be

Maaike van Ameijde is Senior Research Associate at the HRM Centre of Vlerick Leuven GentManagement School, Ghent, Belgium.

Leadershipempowerment

behaviour

305

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints