Psychological empowerment: definition, measurement, and ...



Psychological empowerment: definition, measurement, and validation

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,  Jul 1999  by Menon, Sanjay T

Abstract

Psychological empowerment was defined from the perspective of the individual employee, and a measure was developed using three different samples. The psychologically empowered state was considered to be a cognitive state characterized by a sense of perceived control, perceptions of competence, and internalization of the goals and objectives of the organization. Using an initial sample of 311 employed individuals (41% women, 45% Francophone), a 9-item, 3-factor scale of psychological empowerment was developed with subscale reliabilities as follows: perceived control (.83), perceived competence (.80), and goal internalization (.88). In the validation sample of 66 employees from a single organization, empowerment as measured by the scale was negatively related to organizational centralization while being positively related to delegation.

Although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence regarding the success or failure of empowerment attempts, it is only recently that researchers have begun to study the empowerment phenomenon in a systematic manner. Examples of recent empirical studies include the work of Spreitzer (1996) and Thorlakson and Murray (1996). It is quite possible that this relative paucity of empirical work reflects the dearth of widely available measures of empowerment. At the time of this study, the only measure in circulation was that recently used by Spreitzer (1996). The objectives of the article are: (a) to present an integrative definition to psychological empowerment from the perspective of the employee, and (b) to report results from a two-part study undertaken to develop a psychometrically sound measure of psychological empowerment based on this integrative definition.

Theoretical approaches to empowerment have dealt with three major psychological facets of power. Perceived control over one's environment and others is considered one of the primary psychological states underlying the experience of empowerment (e.g., see Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). A related aspect of power is the ability to meet situational demands. Correspondingly, enhanced feelings of self-efficacy or perceived competence is also considered an integral part of the empowerment experience (e.g., see Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Power can also signify energy. History is replete with instances of the energizing power of valued goals in connection with wars, freedom struggles, and missionary work. In the organizational context predominantly characterized by contractual relationships between the organization and the employee, creation of such goals requires the transformation of the attitudes and beliefs of the employees in line with the organization's mission and objectives. Such a transformation is typically thought to be provided by leadership practices variously known as visionary, charismatic, and inspirational leadership. The effect of the transformational influence is to energize subordinates to participate in the process of transforming the organization.

Based on the above three major psychological facets of power, a working definition of psychological empowerment can be proposed as follows: the psychologically empowered state is a cognitive state characterized by a sense of perceived control, competence, and goal internalization. Empowerment is thus considered a multi-faceted construct reflecting the different dimensions of being psychologically enabled, and is conceived of as a positive additive function of the three dimensions. The first dimension of perceived control includes beliefs about authority, decision-making latitude, availability of resources, autonomy in the scheduling and performance of work, etc. The second dimension of perceived competence reflects role-mastery, which besides requiring the skillful accomplishment of one or more assigned tasks, also requires successful coping with non-routine role-related situations. The goal internalization dimension captures the energizing property of a worthy cause or exciting vision provided by the organizational leadership.

Based on this definition, a measure of psychological empowerment can be envisaged as a set of items designed to tap the state of mind of individuals with regard to the above three dimensions of empowerment. To develop such a measure, two separate studies were conducted in accordance with the general procedure for scale development recommended by DeVellis (1991).

The Principal Study: Scale Development

METHOD

Questionnaire

Expert review of an initial item pool of 60 items by a panel of two faculty members familiar with the content area of empowerment and of three doctoral students yielded a set of 15 items to be included in the questionnaire: 5 items for each dimension (see Table 1). A six-point (strongly disagree, moderately disagree, mildly disagree, mildly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree) response format was chosen for these items. Because the respondents were expected to be from Quebec, a bilingual questionnaire in English and French was prepared.

Participants

The questionnaire was administered, in class, to a total sample of 355 employed individuals enrolled in part-time business programs at four (two English and two French) universities in Montreal; 311 usable responses were obtained, resulting in a response rate of 88%. Of the total sample, 127 (41%) were women and 141 respondents (45%) answered in French. The average age was 30 years (SD = 6.5 years), average job tenure 5.4 years (SD = 4.7 years), and 68% had at least a college degree. Subsequently, a shortened version of the questionnaire was administered twice to a second, separate, demographically similar sample of 94 employed respondents for calculating test-retest reliabilities. Only 85 individuals (45% female, 43% French, mean age = 28 years) responded twice, corresponding to a response rate of 90%.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Box's M test of equality of covariance matrices revealed no significant difference between the two language groups, justifying the treatment of all 311 respondents as a single sample. The average within- subscale correlation was .51 while the average between-subscale correlation was .26. This pattern of correlations is in line with prior expectations of three distinct subscales.

Factor Analysis

The 15 items were subjected to a principal component analysis with varimax rotation, the results of which are shown in Table 1. In line with expectations, the factor analysis yielded three components corresponding to the three subscales (eigen values 5.67, 2.25, 1.44; 62% variance explained). As can be seen from Table 1, the last two items in each scale had relatively lower factor loadings on their respective factors and in some instances had relatively high loadings on other factors. Therefore, the 15-item scale was refined by dropping the last two items in each subscale, resulting in a 9-item scale with 3 items in each subscale.

This final set of nine items was subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis. The three factor model yielded a X[Symbol Not Transcribed]2[Symbol Not Transcribed](df=24) of 50.67 (p =.001), with an Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) of .933, and root mean square residual (rmsr) of .051. In contrast, a single factor model, which stipulates that all nine indicators have only one underlying factor, yielded a X[Symbol Not Transcribed]2[Symbol Not Transcribed](df=27) of 613.55, with an AGFI of .470 and rmsr of .171. With the single factor model as the baseline model, the Normed Fit Index (NFI)(f.1) was .92 and the Tucker- Lewis index (TL)(f.2) was .95. These results support the contention that there are three latent factors underlying the psychological empowerment scale as stipulated.

The alpha reliabilities of the subscales in the reduced scale were as follows: perceived control (.83), perceived competence (.80), and goal internalization (.88). Using the second sample of 85 respondents, the test-retest reliabilities of the three subscales were calculated as follows: .87 (perceived control), .77 (perceived competence), and .86 (goal internalization).

The Supplementary Study: Assessing Construct Validity

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

A questionnaire containing the 9-item psychological empowerment scale, measures of select organizational variables (see Table 2), and demographic variables was administered to employees of a financial services company headquartered in Western Ontario. All 162 employees received the questionnaire through internal mail; response was voluntary. A total of 66 questionnaires were returned directly to the researcher yielding a response rate of 41%. The sample was made up mostly of female employees (92%) and had an average age of 27.3 years. The average organizational tenure was 4.2 years, and 42% of the sample had college degrees.

Measures

Centralization was measured by the Dewar, Whetten, and Boje (1980) scale. Delegating and consulting behaviours of the immediate supervisor were measured by items taken from Yukl's (1988) Managerial Practices Survey. Global self-esteem was measured by Rosenberg's (1965) self- esteem scale. Job involvement was measured by Kanungo's (1982) Job Involvement Questionnaire, and organizational commitment was measured by the Affective Commitment Scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Citizenship behaviour was measured using five items patterned on the original measure used by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983).

[pic][pic]ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Principal component analysis, with varimax rotation, of the 9-item psychological empowerment scale yielded three factors corresponding to the three subscales (eigen values 3.63, 1.75, 1.54; 77% variance explained). An overall empowerment score was calculated by summing up the three subscales. As can be seen from Table 2, in line with intuitive expectations, empowerment was significantly and negatively correlated with centralization while being significantly and positively correlated with delegating and consulting behaviours on the part of the immediate supervisor, the individual's global self-esteem, and three outcome variables (organizational commitment, job involvement, and organizational citizenship behaviour). The correlations in Table 2 also provide strong evidence of discriminant validity at the subscale level. Perceived control has a strong negative correlation with centralization while perceived competence is strongly related to self-esteem. As can be expected, goal internalization is highly correlated with affective organizational commitment and job involvement.

General Discussion

Researchers have used the word "empowerment" both to refer to the act of empowering (e.g., Thorlakson & Murray, 1996) and to describe the internal mental process of the individual being empowered (e.g., Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). In the interest of clarity, the definition used in the present research describes the psychologically empowered state rather than "empowerment" per se. The construct of goal internalization is unique to the present conceptualization of empowerment in two respects. Firstly, recent research has equated psychological empowerment with intrinsic task motivation (e.g., Sprietzer, 1996; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Doing so would seem to preclude extrinsic, non-task facets of empowerment resulting, for example, from leadership influence -- a facet captured by the subscale goal internalization in the present formulation. Secondly, the dimension of meaning in Spreitzer's measure only refers to "a fit between the requirements of a work role and a person's beliefs, values and behaviors" (Spreitzer, 1996; p. 484). The items measuring this dimension are at the work/job level and do not tap into the "power of the idea," the latter being the main thrust of leadership approaches to empowerment. On the other hand, the goal internalization dimension in the present formulation explicitly captures the empowering effect of inspiring organizational goals or an exciting organizational vision championed by a transformational leader. It may also be noted that in the data analysis, goal internalization items formed the first factor in the principal component analysis (see Table 1). This is noteworthy because the concept of empowerment has traditionally been associated with the dimension of perceived control.

[pic][pic]On a cautionary note, it is possible that the correlations of the empowerment score and the empowerment subscales with the various organizational measures were inflated due to common method variance, all variables being measured in a single questionnaire. On the other hand, the presence of a possible method bias make the tests of factorial and discriminant validity used in this study more conservative. Overall, the validity and generalizability of the results are enhanced by the fairly heterogeneous nature of the respondent samples.

The studies reported in this paper are partly based on the author's doctoral research conducted at McGill University, Montreal, Canada. A detailed report on the measure as well as a French language version of the scale items can be obtained from the author.

All correspondence regarding this paper should be addressed to Dr. Sanjay T. Menon, Faculty of Organizational Studies, Clarkson University, Box 5790, Postdam, NY 13699. Electronic mail may be sent to menons@clarkson.edu.

References

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 63, 1-18.

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

DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dewar, R.D., Whetten, D.A., & Boje, D. (1980). An examination of the reliability and validity of the Aiken and Hage scales of centralization, formalization and task routineness. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 25, 120-128.

Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Work Alienation. New York: Praeger.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its nature and its antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.

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

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.J.H., & Murray, R.P. (1996). An empirical study of empowerment in the workplace. Group and Organization Management, 21(1), 67-83.

Yukl, G.A. (1988). Development and validation of the Managerial Practices Questionnaire. Technical report, State University of New York, Albany.

Received December 2, 1997

Revised August 21, 1998

Accepted November 20, 1998

Empowerment scale items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Goal Internalization

I am inspired by what we are trying to achieve as an organization .85 .17 .14

I am inspired by the goals of the organization .84 .17 .06

I am enthusiastic about working toward the organization's objectives .83 .20 .09

I am keen on our doing well as an organization* .64 .25 .18

I am enthusiastic about the contribution my work makes to the organization* .63 .26 .20

Perceived Control

I can influence the way work is done in my department .10 .86 .10

I can influence decisions taken in my department .20 .83 .12

I have the authority to make decisions at work .28 .79 .08

I have the authority to work effectively* .37 .58 .27

Important responsibilities are part of my job * .42 .54 .01

Perceived Competence

I have the capabilities required to do my job well .10 .05 .86

I have the skills and abilities to do my job well -.03 .09 .78

I have the competence to work effectively .14 -.05 .76

I can do my work efficiently* .17 .17 .65

I can handle the challenges I face at work* .21 .22 .61

* These items were subsequently dropped resulting in a 9-item scale, 3 items per subscale.

Organizational Empowerment Subscales [a]Variables [a] Perceived Control Perceived Competence (.86) (.78)

Centralization (.78) -.69*** -.06

Delegation (.68) .42*** .08

Consulting (.82) .33** .34**

Self-esteem (.78) .37** .52***

Commitment (.84) .30* .17

Involvement (.84) .11 .21

Citizenship Behaviour (.79) .53*** .36**

Organizational Overall EmpowermentVariables [a] Score Goal Internalizational (.86)

Centralization (.78) -.37** -.64***

Delegation (.68) .27* .40***

Consulting (.82) .32** .43***

Self-esteem (.78) .33** .50***

Commitment (.84) .68*** .56***

Involvement (.84) .61*** .42***

Citizenship Behaviour (.79) .35** .59***

[a] Figures in parentheses are alpha reliabilities.

* p

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download