The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.

htm

PR 40,3

Linking leadership empowerment behaviour to employee attitudes and behavioural intentions

Testing the mediating role of psychological empowerment
Koen Dewettinck and Maaike van Ameijde
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Ghent, Belgium
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate the relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour (LEB), employee psychological empowerment and employee attitudes (affective commitment and job satisfaction) and behavioural intentions (intention to stay). Design/methodology/approach The hypotheses were simultaneously tested on a sample of 380 frontline service employees, using structural equation modeling. Findings The paper found a direct relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour and job satisfaction and affective commitment. Psychological empowerment partially mediates these relationships. Employee attitudes were also shown to be related to intention to stay. Research limitations/implications This study provides validation of the LEB construct in an individualized working context and suggests that psychological empowerment is a relevant construct to link LEB to employee attitudes and behavioural intentions. The cross-sectional nature of this study restricts the clear pinpointing of temporal causal relationships within the empowerment process. Furthermore, common method bias might have inated correlations between constructs. Practical implications The LEB dimensions provide organizations with concrete behaviour that leaders should emphasize in order to foster employee commitment, satisfaction and loyalty to the company. Originality/value This is the rst paper that studies the relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour and the multi-dimensional conceptualization of psychological empowerment. It aims to gain further insights into the relationship between structural and psychological perspectives on empowerment and claries how these constructs relate to employee attitudes and behavioural intentions. Keywords Leadership, Empowerment, Job satisfaction, Employee attitudes, Employee behaviour Paper type Research paper

284
Received 26 February 2008 Revised March 2008 Accepted 19 June 2010

Personnel Review Vol. 40 No. 3, 2011 pp. 284-305 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0048-3486 DOI 10.1108/00483481111118621

Introduction In the past few decades, a complex set of socio-economic pressures, such as the intensifying global economic competition, advances in technology and the shift to a service-oriented economy, have forced organizations to shift towards more decentralized structures where employees are encouraged to take on more responsibilities (Houghton and Yoho, 2005; Ahearne et al., 2005). Given this new organizational reality, both theorists and academics have argued that hierarchical structures and leadership techniques which have traditionally dominated management practices should be complemented with management practices aimed at the empowerment of employees

(e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Forrester, 2000). This has resulted in a greater focus on empowering leadership concepts such as participative management, self-leadership and employee empowerment (e.g. Manz and Sims, 2001; Pearce et al., 2003; Houghton and Yoho, 2005). In practice the benets of employee empowerment have not always been realised. It has been argued that the problem is often in the implementation of empowerment practices and the shaping of new leadership roles required for an empowerment approach. If managed effectively, leadership can be an important driver of the success of empowered organizations (Ahearne et al., 2005). Despite the extensive theoretical work on the importance of empowering practices and structures in general, empirical work that identies the specic leader behaviours and 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 leadership empowerment behaviour (LEB) has been introduced to represent the unique roles and responsibilities of leaders in empowered work contexts. In our research we will further explore the potential value and relevance of this construct. In their study Arnold et al. (2000) stress the importance of further research towards the relationships between LEB, empowerment and work outcome variables. One outcome 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 of the psychological processes underlying the withdrawal from the organization still have to be unravelled. In line with previous research (e.g. Griffeth et al., 2000), job satisfaction and affective commitment will be considered as antecedents of turnover. Intention to stay or leave a job has now been widely recognized as the nal cognitive step in the decision making process of voluntary turnover (Lambert et al., 2001; Lee and Mowday, 1987), therefore intention to stay will be our nal outcome variable. Our research aims to provide a more comprehensive view on the processes leading to employee retention. We will investigate the role of empowerment practices and processes and employee attitudes here in. Research in the sales eld (Jones et al., 2001) has already demonstrated the direct and indirect impact of leadership behaviour on job satisfaction, the latter inuencing intention to leave and actual turnover. In particular, our model relates the construct of psychological empowerment to employee attitudes such as job satisfaction and affective organisational commitment. Employee commitment can vary from basic behavioural commitment, where the follower simply obeys the instructions of the leader, to a deep affective commitment where the follower identies and involves himself with the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Mowday et al., 1979). This research will follow this latter denition. Job satisfaction on the other hand can be dened as an attitude towards specic aspects of the 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 distinct dimensions of psychological empowerment and job satisfaction and commitment (e.g. Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Thomas and Tymon, 1994; Spreitzer et al., 1997). In the conceptual work on empowerment, it has been argued however that the four dimensions only produce the proactive essence of employee empowerment when they act simultaneously and reinforce each other. Therefore, we will consider the psychological empowerment construct as a single, integrated construct.

Leadership empowerment behaviour 285

PR 40,3

286

This research is, as far as we know, the rst to study the relationship between LEB and the multi-dimensional conceptualization of psychological empowerment. As such, our study contributes both to the further validation of these constructs as to research on the relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour (the structural view of empowerment) and psychological empowerment (the psychological view of empowerment). As to date integrative research investigating the relationship between the structural and psychological approach to empowerment is relatively scarce (Seibert et al., 2004). The reason is that recent empowerment literature has followed the general trend in OB research to emphasize the role of the individual and has thereby mainly focused on psychological empowerment. This study aims to establish a relationship between both perspectives on empowerment. As mentioned above one of the aims of this study is to further validate the construct of leadership empowerment behaviour as identied by Arnold et al. (2000). The focus hereby will be on the applicability of the LEB construct in more individualized working contexts, where Arnold et al. (2000) concentrated on the empowered team context. Moreover, this research will look at service-oriented environments and more specically at frontline employees and managers. We argue that it is essential to study the concept of LEB in more detail for frontline managers since they have often been described as the forgotten supervisors or lost managers. Especially in light of the trend returning HRM to the line with increasing people management responsibilities for direct supervisors which are not necessarily complemented with the right level of training, time, interest and priorities given to this group we cannot neglect their impact (Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007). We further would like to contribute to the research eld by adopting Spreitzers (1995) broader conceptualization of the psychological empowerment concept (meaning, competence, self-determination and impact) in order to enable integrated conclusions regarding the relationships between leadership techniques and psychological empowerment, since previous research has often adopted a narrow denition of the concept of empowerment, focusing on only a limited 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 dimensions are argued to combine additively to create an overall construct of psychological empowerment. In other words, the lack of any single dimensions will deate, though not completely eliminate, the overall degree of felt empowerment. (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1444) Before elaborating on the theoretical background, we present an overview of our model, along with the hypothesized relationships in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

Theory A typology of leadership approaches There is an extensive body of research looking into different models of leadership dening a broad range of effective behaviours for leaders. An historical analysis by Pearce et al. (2003) provides a typology distinguishing four main leadership types each focussing on a specic set of behaviours: directive, transactional, transformational and empowering leadership. In theory the differences between the four types are clear. Directive leadership refers to behaviours that are primarily associated with task-focused directions such as issuing instructions and assigning goals. Transactional leadership focuses on the creation of reward contingencies and exchange relationships leading to a calculative compliance of the follower and includes behaviours such as the use of personal or material rewards. Transformational leadership involves the creation and communication of a vision in a charismatic way leading to emotional commitment from the followers emphasising behaviours such as providing a sense of vision, engaging of idealism and providing stimulation and inspiration. Finally, empowering leadership is aimed at the self-development of followers encouraging behaviours such as self-leadership, participative goal setting and teamwork (e.g. Pearce et al., 2003; Houghton and Yoho, 2005). Although it is not argued that the behaviours of directive, transactional and transformational leadership become irrelevant in empowered work environments, the aim of this research lies in establishing a link between leadership behaviour and psychological empowerment or self-management in empowered work environments and therefore the construct of empowering leadership is most suited in developing both theory and research. The growing interest in empowering leadership is resembled by the popularity of new streams of research as self-leadership and participative management (Houghton and Yoho, 2005). The self-leadership concept was rst introduced in 1983 and stressed the importance of self-inuence processes to help people achieve self-direction and self-motivation enabling them to perform their jobs (Neck and Houghton, 2006). Self-leadership is dened as a systematic set of strategies through which individuals inuence themselves toward higher levels of performance and effectiveness (Manz, 1986). This theory was mainly applied in the elds of self-managing teams and empowering leadership. In particular the empowerment literature has focused on SuperLeadership, leading others to lead themselves, as a concept to empower followers and to create self-leaders (Pearce et al., 2003; Houghton and Yoho, 2005; Neck and Houghton, 2006). Manz and Sims (1987) suggest in their research that the most effective external leaders of self-managing teams are those that engage in behaviours that facilitate self-leadership within the teams. The historical basis of empowering leadership can be traced back to models like Banduras (1986) social cognitive theory and participative goal setting research. Social cognitive theory has, for example, stated that there is a triadic and reciprocal relationship between an individuals cognitive processes, his behaviour and his environment. This implicates the need for leaders to encourage followers to use self-leadership strategies (Houghton and Yoho, 2005) and to model appropriate self-leadership behaviour which can then be subsequently adopted by the followers (Manz and Sims, 2001). Empowering leadership can also be complementary to participative goal setting theory since self-management skills may be a clear added-value for setting appropriate goals (Pearce et al., 2003).

Leadership empowerment behaviour 287

PR 40,3

288

Perspectives on empowerment In this study we adopt Spreitzers (1995, p. 1443) denition of psychological empowerment as increased intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions reecting an individuals orientation to his or her work role: competence, impact, meaning and self-determination. Two general perspectives on empowerment can be derived from the literature: (1) a macro perspective, considering the various organizational empowering structures and policies (such as the managerial role); and (2) a micro perspective, focusing on empowerment as a specic form of intrinsic motivation at the level of the employee (Liden and Arad, 1996). Although both perspectives are considered to be complementary, prior research that has tried to link them is relatively scarce. In the present study, we aim to develop and test a model that addresses the relationship between the macro perspective and micro perspective of empowerment. The rst perspective, i.e. the macro perspective or the structural view, has concentrated on organizational and managerial practices aimed at empowering employees at lower organizational levels. As such, the notion of empowerment differs from traditional practices in the sense that it involves the delegation of decision-making responsibilities and the provision of access to information and resources to the lowest possible hierarchical level (Bowen and Lawler, 1992, 1995; Rothstein, 1995). Central to the notion of structural empowerment is that it entails the installation of empowering organization congurations and specic managerial behaviours and skills, such as the delegation of decision-making prerogatives to employees, along with giving employees the discretion to act on their own (Mills and Ungson, 2003). It can be argued that leadership empowerment behaviour or LEB is a central element of structural empowerment, since this concept recognises the importance of the role of the leader in shaping the structures of the organization. A second perspective on empowerment focuses on the perceptual or psychological dimensions of empowerment at the level of the individual employee (Liden et al., 2000). This perspective on empowerment concentrates on the individual experience of empowerment, i.e. what individuals have to feel in order for interventions to become effective rather than specic 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 empowerment dimensions, which reect four distinct cognitions regarding employees orientations towards their work. These four empowerment dimensions represent: (1) meaningfulness, i.e. the value of a work goal or purpose, judged in relation to an employees own ideals and standards; (2) competence, i.e. an employees belief in his or her capability to perform task activities skilfully; (3) self-determination, i.e. perception of autonomy in the initiation and continuation of work behaviours and processes; and (4) impact, i.e. the degree to which an employee perceives being able to inuence strategic, administrative or operating outcomes at work.

Together, these four cognitions reect an active, rather than a passive orientation to a work role. The four dimensions are argued to combine additively to create an overall construct of psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995). As stated in the introduction little research has focused on the relationship between these two perspectives on empowerment. One of the exceptions is a study by Laschinger et al. (2001) which revealed that psychological empowerment can be considered as an outcome of structural empowerment. In addition, a more recent study by Seibert et al. (2004) linked structural empowerment climate to psychological empowerment, revealing that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between empowerment climate and individual job performance. These preliminary research ndings conrm the growing need to relate both views on empowerment, as both forms of empowerment can complement each other in affecting employee behaviours and attitudes. Impact of leadership empowerment behaviour on psychological empowerment There is an increasing awareness of the need for more research on the topic of leadership in empowered organizations (Conger, 1989). The leadership requirements of the more traditional working environment are only partially relevant for the empowered 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 that relate to the more traditional directive leadership models do not encompass the full spectrum of leadership behaviours required in empowered working contexts. Although there is a growing theoretical interest in empowering leadership, research on the actual practices that leaders should employ to create a sense of empowerment as well 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 have introduced the construct of leadership empowerment behaviour (LEB) to empirically justify the unique role of leaders in empowered contexts. They constructed a scale for measuring LEB identifying and validating ve factors reecting empowering leadership, i.e. coaching (the degree to which a leader supports employee development); informing (the degree to which a leader informs employees about company rules and decisions); leading by example (the extent to which the leader acts as an example for the team); showing concern/interacting with the team (the degree to which the leader is genuinely concerned about team members wellbeing); and nally participative decision-making (the extent to which the leader takes team members comments into account and involves team members in decision making). The construct of leadership empowerment behaviour is expected to contribute to empowerment by affecting the individual or team perception of meaning, competence, self-determination and/or impact (Spreitzer, 1996). As stated above, research on the relationship between LEB and psychological empowerment is scarce. Banduras (1986) social cognitive theory, stating that empowerment-related dimensions can be inuenced by providing emotional support, words of encouragement, positive persuasion, models of success and the experience of mastering a task with success, provides theoretical support for these ve dimensions of LEB. The same applies for the participative goal setting research, where it is assumed that participative decision making will stimulate self-management skills (Pearce et al., 2003). Recent ndings by

Leadership empowerment behaviour 289

PR 40,3

290

Houghton and Yoho (2005) lead to the proposition that empowering leadership (as opposed to directive and transactional leadership) leads to higher levels of psychological empowerment among followers and urges researchers to further empirically 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 of empowerment, while directive and transactional leadership will result in low levels of empowerment. Preliminary research by Irvine et al. (1999) has been able to conrm this proposition by linking employee empowerment to an empowering leadership style. Based on these arguments, we expect that LEB will be positively related to employee psychological empowerment: H1. LEB will be positively related to employee psychological empowerment. Impact of psychological empowerment on job satisfaction and affective commitment A growing body of research has demonstrated the link between employee empowerment and work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction and affective commitment (e.g. Spreitzer, 1995; Liden et al., 2000). The relationship between psychological 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 four dimensions of psychological empowerment and job satisfaction, where the correlation was strongest for the dimension meaningfulness. Research by Liden and colleagues conrmed the relationship of the dimensions competence and meaningfulness with job satisfaction, where research by Thomas and Tymon (1994) related impact, meaningfulness and choice (conceptually related to the dimension self-determination of Spreitzer) to job satisfaction. The importance of a personally meaningful job for the employees satisfaction has already been noted by theorists such as Herzberg et al. (1959) and Hackman and Oldham (1980). The underlying argument is that employees who perceive their jobs to be signicant and worthwhile feel higher levels of work satisfaction than employees who see their jobs as having little value. This is consistent with Lockes notion of personal value fullment, which is based on the belief that work satisfaction results from the perception that ones work fulls or allows the fullment of ones desired work values. Theory further indicates that employees who feel condent that they will succeed 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 causing them to attribute more of the work to themselves than to other individuals resulting in more satisfaction (Thomas and Tymon, 1994). Finally, theory on the impact dimension states that individuals should get a sense of job satisfaction when they feel that they have been directly involved in outcomes that affect the organization (Ashforth, 1989). These arguments give theoretical and empirical support for the relationship between the dimensions of psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. We therefore expect to nd a positive relationship between the overall construct of psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: H2a. Psychological empowerment will be positively related to job satisfaction.

Research has also examined, although to a lesser extent, the relationship between psychological empowerment and (affective) commitment. Affective commitment differentiates from other forms of commitment like continuance and normative commitment because it reects a deep relationship between the employee and the organization. This is in contrast with continuance commitment which is based more on a nancial need to stay with the organization and normative commitment which focuses more on feelings of obligation to stay involved in the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Mowday et al., 1979). The relationship between psychological empowerment and commitment has been demonstrated in various studies and the meaning dimension has been specically 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 job contributes to a higher level of (affective) commitment. The theoretical argument behind 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 argues that relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal and mutual commitments. This state is achieved if both leader and follower abide by certain rules or norms. The norm of reciprocity is probably the most popular exchange rule where reciprocity has been looked at as a culture mandate. Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005, p 877) describe a norm in this form as a norm that describes how one should behave and those who follow these norms are obligated to behave reciprocally. Gouldner (1960) has proposed this norm is universally applicable and this view has been widely adopted. Generally, it is assumed that social exchange relationships are established when leaders take care of their followers by providing them for example with the needed support. These strong relations in turn lead to effective work behaviour and positive employee attitudes such as commitment (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). It could thus be argued that empowerment contributes to a sense of affective commitment to the organization through 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 to reciprocate by feeling more deeply committed to the organization. Based on the theoretical arguments of social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity we expect to nd a positive relationship between psychological empowerment and affective commitment: H2b. Psychological empowerment will be positively related to affective commitment.

Leadership empowerment behaviour 291

Mediating role of psychological empowerment between leadership empowerment behaviour and job satisfaction and affective commitment Accumulating evidence suggests that empowerment, both organizational (leadership empowerment behaviour) and individual (psychological empowerment), is positively associated 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 empowerment can be seen as the respective cause and effect of empowerment insinuating that leaders can have an inuence on the empowering experiences of the subordinates. A study by Deci et al. (1989) suggests as well that the behaviour of the supervisor plays a vital role in

PR 40,3

292

providing followers with empowering experiences, which in turn contribute to the latters feeling of self-worth and sense of self-determination. However, the exact mechanisms by which empowering leaders impact their followers motivation and performance have not yet been fully empirically addressed. To our knowledge no studies have explored the mediating relationship of psychological empowerment between leadership empowerment behaviour and employee attitudes and only a limited number of studies have been able to empirically justify a mediating role of psychological empowerment between leadership, mostly transformational, and employee outcomes. Research by Avolio et al. (2004) showed that psychological empowerment modestly mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment and research by Huang et al. (2006) only partially succeeded in replicating these ndings in a Chinese setting. Seibert et al. (2004) took a broader perspective and successfully demonstrated the mediating role of psychological empowerment in the relationship between empowering climate (conceptualized as organizational empowerment) and job performance. These ndings suggest that psychological empowerment is likely to foster the link between (empowering) leadership behaviour and employee outcomes as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. We have formulated our conceptual model in such a way that it will allow us to empirically test the relationship between empowering leadership behaviour and job satisfaction and affective commitment via psychological empowerment. We have set up a hypothesis for job satisfaction and organizational commitment because previous research ndings are mixed: H3a. H3b. Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour and job satisfaction. Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour and affective commitment.

Impact of affective commitment and job satisfaction on intention to stay The relation between employee attitudes and turnover has been subject of multiple research 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 be modest, a meta-analysis of Griffeth et al. (2000) shows that the strongest predictive value comes from organizational commitment (r 20:23) and job satisfaction (r 20:19). Already in the seventies a longitudinal study of Porter et al. (1974) demonstrated the relationship between employee attitudes such as job satisfaction and commitment and turnover. In particular, their research showed that organizational commitment was a better discriminator between stayers and leavers than job satisfaction. A more recent study by Van Dick et al. (2004) looked more specically at an employees intention to leave rather than actual turnover. Their study provides a link between organizational identication, job satisfaction and turnover intention across multiple samples. The meta-analysis of Griffeth et al. (2000) also argues that turnover intentions remain the best predictor of actual turnover (r 0:38) insinuating that intention to stay may be a crucial variable in the processes leading to turnover. Overall, theorists conrm that the intention to stay or leave is the nal cognitive step in the decision-making process of voluntary turnover (Lambert et al., 2001; Hom and Griffeth, 1995; Lee and Mowday, 1987).

Theory has provided several models to explain the processes by which an employee leaves the organization and research has started to empirically justify these models. As one of the rst, Mobley (1977) proposed a very detailed process where job satisfaction is ultimately linked with turnover. Some of the intermediate linkages between job satisfaction 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 employees decision to leave the organization is an immediate result of the interaction between job satisfaction and job opportunities. One of the more recent models is probably of Steers and 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 employees staying with or leaving an organization. In short, their model states that job expectations and values inuence affective responses as job satisfaction and affective commitment (Steers and Mowday, 1981). These in turn inuence the intent to quit or stay with the organization leading to the individuals actual staying or quitting behaviour (Lee and Mowday, 1987). Michaels and Spector (1982) partially tested these models and their results showed that job satisfaction and organizational commitment were intermediate antecedents of intention to leave, the latter being an intermediate antecedent of turnover (Lee and Mowday, 1987). A study of Stump and Hartman (1984) was able to replicate these ndings and suggested another intermediate link between intention to leave and actual turnover, namely environmental exploration. Further, Lee and Mowday (1987) conrmed the link between job satisfaction and organizational commitment and turnover intentions where turnover intentions had a direct impact on turnover. In sum, theory and empirical studies strongly suggest that employee attitudes such as job satisfaction and affective commitment inuence the employees intent and decision to stay or quit the organization. Most of the empirical research has examined the negative implications of job satisfaction and commitment on turnover, mostly taking intention to quit or stay as a mediating variable. This research will test the positive impact of job satisfaction and commitment on the employees intent to stay with 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 organizational commitment to intention to quit. In this study we will look at one specic type of organizational commitment, affective commitment. This type of commitment is expected to form the deepest relationships between employee and organization where the employee shows a strong concern for the wellbeing of the organization. Strongly affectively committed employees would thus be more inclined to stay with the organization, which leads us to the following hypothesis: H4b. Affective commitment will be positively related to intention to stay.

Leadership empowerment behaviour 293

Method Sample and data collection A web-based survey was administered during normal working hours to frontline employees in four service organizations active in people-related services such as temporary stafng and health insurance. All respondents spend considerable time in

PR 40,3

294

direct contact with customers. To foster collaboration, one week prior to sending out our request to ll out the survey, respondents received a motivating mail from their HR director. Respondents were given two weeks to respond. After that time, a reminding mail was sent, again by the HR directors of the companies. In total, 743 employees were invited to collaborate to the study and 413 surveys were lled out of which 381 were useful for our analyses (no missing values) resulting in an overall response rate of 51 per cent. A majority of the respondents is female (73.4 per cent), which reects the gender composition of the workforce in these service organizations. The average respondents age is between 31 and 35 years. A total of 1.1 per cent holds a primary school diploma, 23 per cent a high school diploma, 48.5 per cent a bachelor and 27.4 per cent a master degree. Average tenure is between six and ten years. Measures Table I provides the basic statistics and inter-correlations between the rst order constructs included in our model. We discuss the measures below. Leadership empowerment behaviour. The ve dimensions of leadership empowerment behaviour (leading by example, participative decision making, coaching, informing and showing concern/interacting with the team) were measured using the scales proposed by Arnold et al. (2000). Because their scales have been originally developed to assess leadership empowering behaviour in a team context as opposed to in a more individualised context, we re-evaluated the psychometric properties of the scales. Based on conrmatory factor analyses using structural equation modeling, some items were deleted because of low loadings to the underlying construct, but in general the ve factor structure found by Arnold et al. (2000) was conrmed. All dimensions were rated on a ve point response scale, where 1 never and 5 always was used. The rst LEB dimension, leading by example, was measured by three items (e.g. Sets high standards for performance by his/her own behaviour). The second LEB dimension, participative decision making was measured by ve items (e.g. Considers my work groups ideas when he/she disagrees with them). The third LEB dimension, coaching, was measured by 12 items (e.g. Encourages work group members to solve problems together). The fourth dimension, informing, was measured by six items (e.g. Explains how my work group ts into the company) and the fth dimension, showing concern/interacting with the team, was measured by eight items (e.g. Takes the time to discuss work group members concerns patiently). Cronbach alpha reliabilities for these scales ranged from 0.82 to 0.94. Psychological empowerment. Psychological empowerment was measured by the scale developed by Spreitzer (1995). Each of the four empowerment dimensions (i.e. meaningfulness, competence, self-determination and impact) was measured by three items (e.g. The work that I do is very important to me). Items were rated on a ve point response scale, ranging from totally dissatised to totally satised. Reliabilities of these scales ranged from 0.83 to 0.91. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured by ve items from Churchill et al. (1974) and Hartline and Ferrell (1993). These items (e.g. Indicate how satised you are with your co-workers) tapped into different aspects of employee satisfaction such as satisfaction with the job in general or support from the organization. Items were rated

Variable 3.43 3.72 3.49 3.41 3.57 4.20 4.11 3.82 3.32 3.52 3.61 4.24 0.88 0.69 0.58 0.67 0.28 0.14 0.37 0.35 0.42 0.23 0.18 0.94 0.71 0.72 0.30 0.12 0.32 0.29 0.53 0.32 0.15 0.94 0.56 0.30 0.11 0.30 0.31 0.49 0.31 0.13 0.92 0.28 0.21 0.36 0.30 0.50 0.31 0.22 0.83 0.48 0.48 0.49 0.42 0.48 0.24 0.86 0.39 0.33 0.23 0.25 0.18 0.87 0.60 0.36 0.27 0.10 0.91 0.38 0.34 0.21 0.85 0.75 0.77 0.84 0.78 0.69 0.64 0.78 0.81 0.57 0.71 0.93 0.82a 0.41b 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.26 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.38 0.23 0.19

SD

10

11

12

1. Leading by example 2. Participation 3. Coaching 4. Informing 5. Concern/interacting 6. Meaning 7. Competence 8. Self determination 9. Impact 10. Job satisfaction 11. Affective commitment 12. Intention to stay

0.78 0.69 0.47

0.91 0.40

0.92

Notes: a Entries on the diagonal are Cronbachs alphas; b Correlations . 0.06, p , 0.05; correlations . 0.09, p , 0.01; correlations . 0.10, p , 0.001; N 380. Construct mean and standard deviation based on average mean and standard deviation of observed items raw score per rst order construct

Leadership empowerment behaviour 295

Table I. Means, standard deviations and correlations among rst order constructs

PR 40,3

296

on a ve point scale, ranging from totally dissatised to totally satised. Reliability for the scale (Cronbachs alpha) in this sample was 0.78. Affective commitment. Affective commitment was measured by seven items (e.g. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for) from the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday et al., 1979). These items reect the affective component of organizational commitment. Items were rated on a ve point Likert scale, ranging from totally disagree to totally agree. Reliability for the scale (Cronbachs alpha) in this sample was 0.91. Intention to stay. Intention to stay was measured by ve items (e.g. Whats the chance that you will be working for this company in one year?) adapted from Bluedorn (1982). Items were rated on a ve point response scale, ranging from very small to almost sure. Reliability for the scale (Cronbachs alpha) in this sample was 0.92. Analysis To ensure that latent constructs are adequately measured, we assessed the measurement properties by examining the factor structure underlying the items and the correlations between the constructs. We also tested our measurement model through conrmatory factor analysis in AMOS (all variables and latent constructs included in the model and covariance relationships specied between the latent constructs). The hypotheses were simultaneously tested in a structural model, using maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS (Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999). The outcome variables were represented by two standardized, randomly composed, composite indicators (see, e.g. Little et al., 2002; Sass and Smith, 2006). As recommended by Gerbing and Anderson (1988), we assessed the unidimensionality of these variables before parcelling the items. For the multidimensional constructs (LEB and psychological empowerment) we consistently found a better t for the multi-factor models. Consequently we used separate indicators for each of the underlying dimensions for these constructs. Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) has several advantages. First, it provides a systematic basis for evaluating the t of the hypothesized model to data based on a x2-statistic, incremental t indices (e.g. non-normed-t-index, comparative t index) and other indicators of absolute t including Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (MacCallum and Austin, 2000). Second, it provides control over measurement error that can constitute over 50 percent of the observed variance and often introduces substantial bias in estimated effects and hypothesis testing (Ping, 2001). Results In terms of overall t, Table II reveals the following t statistics: x2 228:25, df 82, p , 0:001, GFI 0:93, NFI 0:93, NNFI 0:94, CFI 0:95, RMR 0:03, RMSEA 0:07 (90% CI 0:06 to 0.08). The relative t indicators exceed 0.92 and the absolute t indicators suggest that the residuals are small and tightly distributed. Consistent with this, the parsimony t indicator, NNFI, exceeds 0.94, indicating that the model has adequate over-identifying restrictions for parsimony. Based on these statistics, we conclude that our model provides an adequate t to the data. The path coefcients enable us to draw some conclusions concerning the hypothesized relationships. H1 theorised that LEB would be positively related to

Dependent variable Psychological empowerment l (SE) t-value Job satisfaction l (SE) t-value 0.75 0.22 8.33 * * 3.67 * 0.27 0.69 (0.09) (0.09) 0.36 3.00 * 7.67 * * Affective commitment l (SE) t-value 0.51 7.29 * * (0.09) (0.06) 0.65 Intention to stay l (SE) t-value 0.57 0.30 (0.14) (0.10) 0.24 4.07 * * 3.00 *

Independent variable (0.07) 0.25

LEB Psychological empowerment Job satisfaction Affective commitment R2

Notes: * p # 0.01 (critical t-value 2.33); * * p # 0.001 (critical t-value 3.14) relationship not hypothesized/specied; Fit: x 2 228.25, df 82 (p , 0.001), GFI 0.93, NFI 0.93, NNFI 0.94, CFI 0.95, RMR 0.03, RMSEA 0.07 (90% CI 0.06 to 0.08)

Leadership empowerment behaviour 297

Table II. Estimated parameters and t statistics for the structural model

PR 40,3

298

psychological empowerment. Our structural model supports this hypothesis (l 0:50; p # 0:01). As can be seen in Table II, LEB has a direct effect on job satisfaction (l 0:69; p # 0:01) and affective commitment (l 0:19; p # 0:01) as well. The relationships between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction was also conrmed (H2a: l 0:20; p # 0:01) as well as the relationship between psychological empowerment and affective commitment (H2b: l 0:48; p # 0:01). To assess the mediating role of psychological empowerment in linking LEB to the attitude constructs, we tested multiple competing nested structural models. The rst model is the one presented before, including both the mediating paths through psychological empowerment and the direct paths between LEB and the attitude constructs. In a second model, we constrained the path between LEB and affective commitment. In a third model, we constrained the path between LEB and job satisfaction. These analyses enabled us to assess whether psychological empowerment is a fully or partially mediating variable. Table III presents the changes in x2 between our hypothesized and two alternative models. The results show that the partially mediating model provides a signicantly better t than the two constrained models. The results also indicate that psychological empowerment is a stronger mediator of the relationship between LEB and affective commitment. The direct relationship between LEB and job satisfaction remains strong when the mediating path is included in the model. Thus, generally, H3a and H3b are partially supported. H4a and H4b test the relationships between job satisfaction (H4a), affective commitment (H4b) and intention to stay. The structural model provides support for the relationship between job satisfaction (H4a: l 0:31; p # 0:01), affective commitment (H4b: l 0:21; p # 0:01) and intention to stay. Overall these results indicate support for the conceptual model that was put forward in our theoretical framework. Leadership empowerment behaviour enhances psychological empowerment, which in turn inuences job satisfaction and affective commitment. Although we found direct relationships between LEB and job satisfaction and affective commitment, part of these effects are mediated by psychological empowerment. Psychological empowerment can thus be seen as a partially mediating variable between LEB and employee attitudes. Finally, our model indicates a direct relationship between affective commitment and job satisfaction and intention to stay. Discussion The overall aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour, employee psychological empowerment and employee attitudes and behavioural intentions. Below, we discuss some noteworthy
x2
Dx 2

df

Conclusion Worse t than baseline model (p # 0:01) Worse t than baseline model (p # 0:001)

Table III. Comparison of the fully and partially mediating models

Baseline model: partially mediating model 228.25 82 Alternative model 1: full mediation LEB ! psych. emp. ! affective commitment 238.48 83 10.23 Alternative model 2: full mediation LEB ! psych. emp ! job satisfaction 380.81 83 152.56

implications of this study and its ndings. First, as suggested by Arnold et al. (2000), we provide further validation of the LEB construct in an individualized working context. The psychometric properties of the LEB scale and its sub-dimensions are shown to be solid and generalizable across different working contexts. While Arnolds original study assessed leadership empowerment behaviour in a team context, our study indicates that the instrument is also useful in working context where teamwork is not a core feature of the job. Moreover, it demonstrates the relevance of leadership empowerment behaviour for front line managers. Second, our study indicates that psychological empowerment is a relevant construct to at least partially explain how leadership empowerment behaviour relates to employee job satisfaction and affective commitment. Research focusing on the relationship between leadership and employee motivation traditionally makes a strict distinction between intrinsic motivation and contextual elements. Intrinsic motivation is assumed to be inuenced mainly by personal and job content characteristics such as task identity, skill variety, task signicance and feedback (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). Contextual elements, such as leadership characteristics, are generally assumed to function as moderating variables in explaining how individual cognitions and affect relate to employee attitudes and behaviour. Our ndings suggest however that leadership empowerment behaviour, which is a contextual element, is a factor that should not be neglected in theorizing on how intrinsic motivation takes shape. This suggests, in line with Banduras social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 2001) that intrapersonal cognitive and motivational processes can be substantially inuenced by environmental factors, such as leadership characteristics. Third, the results indicate a direct relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour and job satisfaction and affective commitment. A comparison of the direct and indirect relationships between those variables suggests that psychological empowerment seems especially relevant in explaining the relationship between LEB and affective commitment. Fourth, our study conrms the importance of employee job satisfaction and affective commitment in explaining employee loyalty to the company. Job satisfaction seems to be a more important antecedent of intention to stay than the affective commitment component of organizational commitment. This suggests that the nature of the relationship between supervisors and employees has a stronger impact on employees decision to stay with a company than the extent to which they identify themselves with the organization. These ndings are interesting in the light of previous research, where mixed results have been found on the impact of job satisfaction and organizational commitment and their relative predictive strength (e.g. Griffeth et al., 2000). Our study demonstrates that job satisfaction is a key variable between the work environment characteristics and turnover intentions (Lambert et al., 2001). By shaping this direct work environment leaders are able to increase satisfaction levels, and to ultimately lower turnover intent. Study limitations To put this articles ndings and implications in the right perspective, it is important to discuss the study limitations. First, common-method variance may have biased the validity of the structural relationships. Common-method bias is likely to uniformly inate correlations between constructs and thus the strength of the relationships found

Leadership empowerment behaviour 299

PR 40,3

300

between them. Common method seems however less problematic when interpreting the relative strength of relationships between constructs, especially when they are simultaneously assessed in a structural model. To assess the extent to which common method variance may be a problem, we conducted Harmans single factor test for common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The number of unrotated factors that appeared to be necessary to account for the variance is 13, together accounting for 71 per cent of the variance in the variables. Furthermore, our structural model, in which we simultaneously tested the measurement properties of our model, provided a good t to the data. Another limitation of our study is its cross-sectional nature. This restricts us from clearly pinpointing the temporally causal relationships within the process of empowerment and its inuence on employee attitudes and behavioural intentions. Additional studies that use longitudinal or eld experimental design to account for more rigorous tests of causality are therefore needed. A third important limitation is that data for our empirical test were provided by frontline service employees from four Belgian service companies. Consequently, more research in distinct employee samples (e.g. non-frontline jobs) and other business contexts is needed to check the generalizability of our ndings. Managerial implications Employee empowerment is of critical importance in todays competitive work environment, since it can give a company a sustained competitive advantage. This study stresses the importance of leadership behaviour in such endeavours. We show that empowering employees through (empowering) leadership behaviour is a valuable option to increase frontline employee job satisfaction, affective commitment and their intention to stay with the organization. Even more, the LEB construct captures real behaviour (leading by example, participative decision making, coaching, informing and showing concern/interacting with the team) guiding and channelling leaders to behave in more effective ways. In this study we found a strong direct link between leadership empowerment behaviour and employee attitudes. These ndings indicate the important role of leaders in directly shaping employee attitudes, especially job satisfaction. Leaders can thus be important for an organization to facilitate changes. In literature, leaders are often described as the forgotten group (Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007; Ahearne et al., 2005). This study indicates however the important role of leaders in shaping employee work experiences. The LEB dimensions provide organizations with concrete behaviour that leaders should show in order to increase their employees feeling of empowerment, job satisfaction and affective commitment. For practitioners, this means that leaders should emphasize leadership behaviours, such as leading by example, participative decision making, coaching, informing and showing concern/interacting with the team. By giving examples leaders are able to model the preferred behaviour thereby increasing role clarity and decreasing role conict, two important antecedents of employee satisfaction (Jones et al., 2001). The involvement of employees in decision making can increase their feelings of empowerment by showing that they have an impact on the processes within the organization. Coaching may provide guidance and clarication for employees thereby increasing their feelings of empowerment.

Informing your employees of organizational changes and how these changes affect the employees keeps the employees connected with their workplace (job satisfaction) and the organization as a whole (affective commitment). By showing concern leaders are able to help them cope with private and organizational changes. Guidance, recognition, coaching, informing and support are thus all important behaviours to positively inuence employee attitudes and employee intentions (Jones et al., 2001). The LEB assessment can function as a useful tool, as part of leadership development programmes, to increase supervisor effectiveness in fostering employee attitudes, and consequently 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 inuence of leadership empowerment behaviour on customer satisfaction and performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 945-55. Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999), AMOS 4 Users Reference Guide, Smallwaters Corporation, Chicago, IL. Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000), The empowering leadership questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviours, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 21, pp. 249-69. Ashforth, B.E. (1989), The experience of powerlessness in organizations, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 43, pp. 207-42. Avolio, B., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 25, pp. 951-68. Bandura, A. (1977), Self-efcacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change, Psychology Review, 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 of Psychology, 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 and when?, 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 Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 269-94. Churchill, G.A., Ford, N.M. and Walker, O.C. (1974), Measuring the job satisfaction of industrial salesmen, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 254-60. Conger, J.A. (1989), Leadership: the art of empowering others, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 17-24. Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 471-82.

Leadership empowerment behaviour 301

PR 40,3

302

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, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 580-90. Forrester, R. (2000), Empowerment: rejuvenating a potent idea, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 67-80. Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, pp. 186-92. Gouldner, A.W. (1960), The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-78. Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W. and Gaertner, S. (2000), A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: update, moderator tests and research implications for the next millennium, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 463-88. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory, 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 of organizational socialization and managerial actions on customer-contact employee behaviours, Report No. 93122, Academy of Marketing Science, Cambridge. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, 2nd ed., John Wiley and 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 dissatisfaction drives 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 and psychological empowerment: when should self-leadership encouraged?, Journal of Leadership 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 leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: the moderating role of organizational tenure, Asia Specic J Manage, Vol. 23, pp. 345-67. Irvine, D., Leatt, P., Evans, M.G. and Backer, R.G. (1999), Measurement of staff empowerment within 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, work attitudes and turnover of salespeople: an integrative study, Journal of Personal Selling and 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 of empowerment: empirical evidence from the healthcare industry, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 24, pp. 71-91. Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L. and Barton, S.M. (2001), The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: a test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers, Social Science Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 233-51.

Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. (2001), Impact of structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: expanding Kanters model, 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 of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12, pp. 684-95. Lee, T.W. and Mowday, R.T. (1987), Voluntarily leaving an organization: an empirical investigation of Steers and Mowdays model of turnover, Academy of Management Journal, 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 and Human Resources Management, Vol. 14, pp. 205-51. Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000), An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships and 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. 9 No. 2, pp. 151-73. MacCallum, R.C. and Austin, J.T. (2000), Application of structural equation modeling in psychological research, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 201-26. Manz, C.C. (1986), Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-inuence processes in organizations, 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 leadership of 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 Lead Themselves, Berett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Martinko, M.J. and Gardner, W.L. (1982), Learned helplessness: an alternative explanation for performance decits, 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 difculty 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 organizational commitment, 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, Grifth, 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. 28 No. 1, pp. 143-53. Mobley, W.H. (1977), Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 237-40. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), The measurement of organizational commitment, 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: past developments, present trends and future possibilities, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 270-95.

Leadership empowerment behaviour 303

PR 40,3

304

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 theoretical typology of leadership, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 273-307. Ping, R.A. (2001), A suggested standard error for interaction coefcients in latent variable regression, Academy of Marketing Science Conference Proceedings, Academy of Marketing Science, Miami. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of 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 Applied Psychology, 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-performance causal 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 structural parameter 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: a multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 332-49. Sparrowe, R.T. (1994), Empowerment in the hospitality industry: an exploration of antecedents and 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 relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction and strain, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 679-705. Steers, R.M. and Mowday, R. (1981), Employee turnover and post-decision accommodation processes, Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 3, pp. 235-83. Stump, S.A. and Hartman, K. (1984), Individual exploration to organizational commitment or withdrawal, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 308-29. Thomas, K.W. and Tymon, W. (1994), Does empowerment always work: understanding the role of 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, job satisfaction and customer satisfaction in TQM organizations: an empirical study, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 5, pp. 247-73.

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 identication 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 authors Koen 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 Gent Management School, Ghent, Belgium.

Leadership empowerment behaviour 305

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