095 an Empirical Research on the Relationship Between Individuals Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary Performance Behaviors an Assessment of the Combination of Pyschological Power and Intimate Will

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June
AN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS
PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT AND
VOLUNTARY PERFORMANCE
BEHAVIORS: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE
COMBINATION OF PYSCHOLOGICAL
POWER AND INTIMATE WILL
*Seil BAL TATAN
**Celalettin SERNKAN
*Marmara University, Turkey
**Pamukkale University, Turkey
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between psychological empowerment and
voluntary performance behavior of academicians working in universities. It is aimed to understand
how the individuals perceptions of psychological empowerment dimensions are related with their
voluntary performance behaviors. This study examines the proposed model that consists of a number
of direct and positive relationships between the psychological empowerment dimensions and
voluntary performance behaviors construct. It is proposed that the dimensions of psychological
empowerment, i.e. meaning, personal development, self-determination, initiation, substantial impact,
and competency will be positively related to individuals voluntary performance behaviors. The
results showed that all dimensions of psychological empowerment had significant relationship with
the construct of voluntary performance behaviors. It was also revealed that psychological
empowerment dimensions had significant positive impact on voluntary performance behaviors.
Keywords: Psychological Empowerment, Voluntary Performance Behavior, Organizational
Citizenship Behavior, Prosocial Behavior, Extra-Role Behavior, Academicians.
INTRODUCTION
Citizenship behaviors in the organizations have been shown to be important outcome of psychological
empowerment. Numerous researchers have recognized a relationship between psychological
empowerment and organizational citizenship related behaviors, such as prosocial behaviors, extra-role
behaviors, proactive behaviors, voluntary behaviors claiming that individuals who feel more
psychologically empowered are more likely to reciprocate by being more committed to their
organization and exhibiting all those voluntary efforts (e.g. Spreitzer, 1995; Honold, 1997; Koberg,
Boss, Senjem and Goodman, 1999; Liden, Wayne and Sparrowe, 2000; Chan, Taylor and Markham,
2008; mer, 2009; Zhong, Lam and Chen, 2011).
Experiencing psychological empowerment and feeling psychological power can result in an
individual being more engaged in voluntary behaviors at work. Psychological empowerment has
been conceptualized as a motivational construct that reflects an active, rather than a passive,
orientation to a work role (Spreitzer, 1995:1444). Employees that have this active orientation desire
to shape their work role and context (Spreitzer, 1995; 1996), and feel an increase in task motivation
(Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), which may increase the likelihood of them engaging in voluntary and
prosocial work behaviors. More specifically, the meaning dimension of psychological empowerment
has been found to result in individuals asserting higher levels of concentration and energy towards
their work (Spreitzer, 1995), as they reported more value and worth in both task-related and voluntary
95
behaviors. Liden et al. (2000) found that psychological empowerment may contribute to a sense of
committed behaviors to the organization through a process of reciprocation. Individuals tend to feel
appreciative when they are allowed to encounter the benefits of psychological empowerment and are
therefore likely to reciprocate by engaging more to the voluntary performance behaviors.
With that respect, in this study, it is suggested that the greater the psychological empowerment, the
greater the cognitive power, the more feeling psychological power, the greater the intimate will and
voluntary performance behaviors in the organization. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to
investigate academicians perceptions of their psychological empowerment and voluntary work
behaviors. Specifically, we have studied relationships between academicians psychological
empowerment perceptions and their voluntary performance behaviors. This research was carried out
in the academic context as the academician empowerment varies greatly from empowerment related to
common business practice because academicians are highly educated and professional group having a
greater influence over their work environment.
Statement of the Problem

Because of the differing research studies of psychological empowerment and citizenship behaviors,
the we felt that the perceptions of individuals psychological empowerment and voluntary
performance behaviors in an academic context needed to be investigated. The organizational
citizenship behaviors scale used in this study is a highly reliable instrument for evaluating the
citizenship behaviors at work and has been used by many scholars in the related field. However, the
instrument for psychological empowerment measurement in this study has been used in two
psychological empowerment studies in the workplaces but has not been used with academicians by
concentrating in universities. Thereby, the information from this study could offer a new perspective
in the ongoing debate over the impact of psychological empowerment on the voluntary work
behaviors in the organizations. As such, the purpose of this study is to investigate psychological
empowerment as measured by the six dimensions of the PEP-S (Psychological Empowerment
Perception-Scale) and voluntary performance behaviors as measured by the five dimensions of the
standard OCBs Scale within the academic research setting.
Research Question
Through quantitative analysis of the Psychological Empowerment Perception Scale (PEP-S) and
voluntary performance behaviors with OCBs Scale administered to academicians from six universities
in stanbul and Denizli cities of Turkey, we investigated academicians perceptions with their selfreports. The following research question guided this study:
1. Is there a relationship between academicians perceptions of six dimensions of the PEP-S
(Meaning, Personal Development, Self-Determination, Initiation, Substantial Impact, and
Competency) with their overall voluntary performance behaviors involving the dimensions of
altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, civic virtue, and sportsmanship?
Significance of the Study

Psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behaviors together have not been studied
with the selected measurement instruments among the academicians in Turkey. Therefore, we chose
to question academicians using an instrument that could help identify the level of their psychological
empowerment in several areas and their voluntary performance behaviors as well. This study was
designed to add to the body of research in the area of psychological empowerment and was designed
to offer new perspectives on the relationships between psychological empowerment and voluntary
work behaviors.
The Structure of the Study

This study is presented in six related parts. The first part consists of an introduction to the subject of
the study, a statement of the problem, the significance of the study, one research question, the
significance and the overview of the study. The second part is a review of related literature and the
96
development of theoretical framework that approached constructs such as psychological

empowerment, voluntary performance behaviors, and the relational model of these constructs. The
third part is a description of the methods, measurement instruments, and procedures used in the
research study. The fourth part is a description, interpretation, and presentation of the findings related
to the research question and hypotheses. The fifth part is a summary of findings for the study,
discussion of the previous literature studies and, evaluations related to the theoretical arguments, and
recommendations for future research. Finally, the sixth part is a summary of the suggested limitations
of the present research study.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Citizenship behaviors in organizations have been investigated with respect to its cognitive, affect
related and/or dispositional antecedents in the literature (e.g. Organ and Konovsky, 1989; Williams
and Anderson, 1991; Konovsky and Organ, 1996; Messer and White, 2006; mer, 2009). The
distinction between cognition and affect at work in explaining citizenship behaviors is focused in the
research of Organ and Near (1985). The authors referred to work related cognitions as employees
judgments or evaluations about various aspects of the work situation. Attitudes stand for favorable or
unfavorable evaluations of specific objects, people, or events and involve both cognitive or calculative
and affective components in nature. Since it is difficult to partition the cognitive and affective
components of such attitudes, in this study they are accepted as contextual constructs as determinants
of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), where context refers to their nature as being work
related (Organ and Near, 1985:243).
Positive work attitudes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, psychological
empowerment have been claimed to be among major determinants of citizenship behaviors by
employees (e.g. O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Organ and Ryan, 1995). The importance of positive
work attitudes in relation to various aspects of outcomes such as individual-level job performance
(e.g. Meyer and Allen, 1997), employee absenteeism, turnover, and commitment have been stated in
earlier researches (e.g. Price and Mueller, 1986). Besides, the impact of psychological empowerment
on citizenship behaviors has been studied and empirically tested by a number of authors both in
foreign counties (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Bogler and Somech, 2004; Meyerson and Kline,
2008; Chiang and Hsieh, 2012; Jin-Liang and Hai-Zhen, 2012) and in Turkey (e.g. Erten, 2008;
Atalay, 2010; Tatan, 2011; Ycel and Demirel, 2012).
As such, psychological empowerment has been related to a number of behavioral outcomes, work role
behaviors, and job attitudes. Based on the previous empirical evidences, this study assumes that
psychological empowerment perception is related to individuals performance behaviors, which is
specifically stated as voluntary performance behavior. Thus, this section will provide conceptual
definitions, prior research on the research constructs and the associations between them. Besides, the
development of theoretical framework and generated hypotheses of the study will be presented.
Prior Research on Psychological

Psychological Power
Empowerment:
Understanding
Since there has been a disagreement with respect to the definition and meaning of the concept of
empowerment and psychological empowerment (Melhem 2004:73; Menon 2001:154), in this study,
initially we will try to explore the conceptual domain of power, which is central to our understanding
of psychological empowerment.
Power is a nebulous and a complex concept and definitions of power abound in the literature, and at
the same time, confusion surrounds its exact meaning as power looks similar in meaning to such
concepts as force, prestige, and influence (Bierstedt, 1950). Traditionally, a widely accepted definition
of power is made in terms of getting others to do what one wants (Weber, 1947 as cited in Yim,
2008:15). In an organizational context, power is usually referred to as ones ability to get the others to
do their tasks or duties (Daft, 2000). However, a more appropriate view of power in this study, in
alignment with the concept of empowerment, may be to construe power with the definition of Kanter
as power is to be mutually shared and developed by managers and employees (Kanter, 1977).
97
Literally, to empower means to give power and employee empowerment can be understood as a
process where the organization, or its management, provides power to the employees (Sagie and
Koslowsky 2000, p.81). In a classification scheme proposed by Menon (2001:157; Yim, 2008:16),
there are three major categories or conceptualizations of empowerment: Empowerment has been
considered an act: the act of granting power to the person(s) being empowered. It has been considered
a. process: the process that leads to the experience of power. It has also been considered a
psychological state that manifests itself as cognitions that can be measured.
On the other hand, viewing from a micro (Seibert, Silver, and Randolph, 2004) and psychological
(Liden et al., 2000) perspective, empowerment has been conceptualized as intrinsic task motivation
(e.g., Conger and Kanungo 1988; Spreitzer 1995; Thomas and Velthouse 1990). This approach of
research has been undertaken in distinct contrast to treating empowerment as a leader-member
relational construct (Conger and Kanungo, 1988), and collectively, it is categorized under the domain
of psychological empowerment (e.g. Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) or intrapersonal
empowerment (Zimmerman, 1990).
Although these two conceptualizations of empowerment (structural and psychological) might appear
to be quite similar, there is a crucial distinction between the two constructs, as pointed out by
Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, and Wilk (2004:529): Whereas structural empowerment is the
perception of the presence or absence of empowering conditions in the workplace, psychological
empowerment is the employees' psychological interpretation or reaction to these conditions. In other
words, structural empowerment characterized by empowering practices serves as a means whereas
psychological empowerment serves as an end (Sagie and Koslowsky 2000:95). With a similar view,
Zimmerman (1995) calls for distinguishing between empowerment processes (structural
empowerment) and empowered outcomes at the individual level of analysis (psychological
empowerment).
While these two conceptions of empowerment exist in the literature and are adopted by different
researchers, in this study we focus specifically on the latter approach which considers empowerment
as a psychological state predicated on employees' perceptions of their jobs. As explicated in detail
previously, we maintain that this psychological approach is believed to be more diagnostic (Feldman
and Lynch, 1988) of individual performance, and it has received less research attention in an academic
context. We now turn to the conceptual domain of psychological empowerment, the very focus of our
study.
Employee empowerment with both structural and psychological views increases an employees sense
of ownership, self-management opportunities, and the ability of teams to govern their own actions
(Bartunek and Spreitzer, 2006). Contemporary research on psychological empowerment has focused
on articulating the empowerment process and the psychological underpinnings of the construct in
terms of self-efficacy and autonomy (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Spreitzer et
al., 1997; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Bordin, Bartram and Casimir, 2007). To conceptualize
empowerment in motivational terms, Banduras (1986) notion of self-efficacy was advanced. Thus,
psychological empowerment refers to a process whereby an individuals belief in his or her selfefficacy is enhanced (Conger and Kanungo, 1988).
As such, when the conceptualization of psychological empowerment is examined, it is seen that
Conger and Kanungo (1988) defined psychological empowerment as the motivational concept of selfefficacy. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that psychological empowerment is a multi-faceted
construct. They defined psychological empowerment more broadly as increased intrinsic task
motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions reflecting an individuals orientation to the work
role: meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. For a complete discussion of the terms, we
refer the reader to Spreitzer (1995) and Thomas and Velthouse (1990).
The most current and widely used conceptualization of psychological empowerment comes from
Spreitzer (1995), Spreitzer et al. (1997), Spreitzer et al. (1999), and is defined as a motivational
construct manifested in four cognitions: meaning; competence; self-determination; and impact
(Spreitzer, 1995, p.1444). Specifically, Spreitzers conceptualization and measurement of
psychological empowerment was based on Thomas and Velthouses (1990) identification of four
98
cognitions believed to measure psychological empowerment: meaning (fit between the job task and
ones own beliefs, values, and behaviors); competence (belief in ones ability to perform a job well);
self-determination (feeling like one has control over ones work); and choice or what Spreitzer refers
to as impact (feeling one can affect ones work outcomes) (e.g. Menon, 2001; Spreitzer et al., 1999;
Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).
When comes to the operationalisation of psychological empowerment, Spreitzers Empowerment
Scale (Spreitzer (1995) appears to measure psychological empowerment as well as other related, but
distinct, constructs such as the extent to which someone has control over the environment in which
they work. Furthermore, the items appear to confound psychological empowerment with empowering
environments and the Job Characteristic Models (JCM) dimensions of task identity, skill variety, and
task significance (Hackman, Lawler and Porter, 1983; Meyerson and Kline, 2008)
Voluntary Performance Behavior: Understanding Intimate Will

In this study, the dependent variable of the research model is voluntary performance behaviors
which is also explained with the conceptualization of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).
We approach the concept of voluntary performance behavior as a form of workplace performance
behaviors involving a variety of voluntary and extra-role behaviors. Therefore, in this part, we will
begin with examining the conceptualization of OCBs and other congruent concepts.
On the common base, the literature reveals that OCBs can be viewed as an individuals spontaneous
and discretionary behaviors that are different from in-role behaviors, which emphasize formal job
descriptions and responsibilities (Organ, 1988). The prior studies have investigated OCBs with
respect to its cognitive, affect related and/or dispositional antecedents (e.g. Organ and Konovsky,
1989; Williams and Anderson, 1991; Konovsky and Organ, 1996; Messer and White, 2006). For
example, Organ and Near (1985) referred to work related cognitions as employees judgments or
evaluations about various aspects of the work situation. Attitudes stand for favorable or unfavorable
evaluations of specific objects, people, or events and involve both cognitive or calculative and
affective components in nature. Since it is difficult to partition the cognitive and affective components
of such attitudes, they will be treated as contextual constructs as determinants of OCBs, where
context refers to their nature as being work related (mer, 2009).
With that respect, the current study accepts and reviews the dimensionality of OCB, including helping
behavior, organizational compliance, sportsmanship, and civic virtue (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine
and Bacharach, 2000; Organ, Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 2006). Helping behavior has been studied
as the major dimension of citizenship behavior (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997; Van Dyne and LePine,
1998). Although it was initially labeled as altruism (e.g., Organ, 1988; Organ and Ryan, 1995), more
recent studies have used the term, -helping (Organ, Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 2006). In particular,
helping is defined as behavior that is directly and intentionally aimed at helping a specific person in
face-to-face situations (Smith, Organ and Near, 1983:657), -promotive behavior that emphasizes small
acts of consideration (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998:109), and -voluntary actions that help another
person with a work problem (Organ, 1990:96). Organizational compliance has been referred to as
generalized compliance, organizational obedience, job dedication, and OCBO (i.e., organizational
citizenship behavior dedicated toward organizations) (Williams and Anderson, 1991; Van Scotter and
Motowidlo, 1996). Sportsmanship is defined as -a demonstration of willingness to forbear minor
and temporary personal inconveniences and impositions without fuss, appeal, or protest (Organ and
Ryan, 1995:782) and -a willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work
without complaining (Organ, 1990:96). Civic virtue, which was developed by Organ and his
colleagues (Konovsky and Organ, 1996; Organ, 1990), refers to such behaviors as attending and
participating in meetings in an organization. This component is seen as a necessary condition to
exhibiting discretionary and spontaneous behaviors (Organ et al., 2006).
The reason behind the difficulty in identifying a consistent set of dimensions and definitions for OCB
is that a number of different terms have been used to describe citizenship behaviors, such as extrarole behavior (Van Dyne et al., 1995; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998), prosocial organizational
behavior (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; OReilly and Chatman, 1986), organizational spontaneity
99
(George and Brief, 1992), contextual performance (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997; Motowidlo and
Van Scotter, 1994), and voluntary behavior (Bar-Tal, 1976; Karada and Mutaflar, 2009; Tatan,
2011; Tatan, 2012). Because of these diverse operational definitions of OCBs, the researchers may
have difficulties to define the nature of citizenship behaviors.
As it is seen, while current definitions vary, most authors define prosocial behaviors as actions
benefiting others and promoting positive interpersonal relationships (e.g., Eisenberg, Fabes and
Spinrad, 2006; Hay, 1994). While the intention of benefiting others is often included as a definitional
component of prosocial responding, the majority of authors agree that prosocial behaviors can follow
a host of motives, which can be self serving (Nantel-Vivier, 2010:15). As discussed by Eisenberg and
colleagues (Eisenberg et al., 2006), this distinguishes prosocial behaviors from altruism, which is
generally understood to represent benevolent actions free of self-interest. Prosocial behaviors are also
distinct from empathy and sympathy, which constitute emotional states or reactions that may, but
do not necessarily, give rise to prosocial acts (Nantel-Vivier, 2010).
In this study, upon the arguments in the literature and based on the examination of a variety of
concepts and contents, the relevant workplace performance behavior (under the roof of citizenship
behaviors) is stated as voluntary performance behavior since we have considered the philosophical
and sociological roots of volunteerism concept. For instance, the concept of altruism was firstly
used by Auguste Comte and defined as a tendency and will to exist for others. Bar-Tal (1976) defined
prosocial behavior as a voluntary action which seeks to serve a benefit to someone without expecting
any external reward (Tatan, 2012:229). Moreover, Durkheim viewed self concept as a destructive
perception while describing altruism as a persons voluntary behavior without seeking any personal
interest (Dubeski, 2001; Karada and Mutaflar, 2009; Tatan, 2012). Additionally, theorists from the
human relations movement provided a theoretical foundation for workplace citizenship behaviors,
offering basic perspectives on the importance of cooperative and helpful predispositions (Bolino,
1999; Thoits and Hewitt, 2001), which in this study are associated with voluntary performance
behavior. For example, Barnard (1938) emphasized the cooperative systems at work and willingness
to contribute as underlying concept necessary to an understanding of organizational activities. In
particular, Barnard (1938:84) stated that it is clear that the willingness of individuals to contribute
efforts to the cooperative systems is essential. Wilson and Musick (1997) called formal
volunteering, i.e., volunteer work in or for the members or the organization, where time and effort
are given for the betterment of the people and specified subsets of organization who are in need. As
further, Kohn (1990) and Safrit (2007) have also used the term voluntary behavior and emphasized
that such behaviors involved helping others, sharing the resources, caring and saving. Morris (as cited
in Cutler, 2000) have defined voluntary behavior as a kind of act which is done intimately and
without circumstance.
As it is seen, the developmental literature has largely focused on a number of categories of behaviors:
response to distress, helping others, sharing, cooperating, and exhibiting intimate behaviors. In this
context, it is suggested that the label of voluntary performance behavior in this study is thus a general
concept, encompassing a wide array of potential actions which are all based on a persons intimate
will.
The Relational Model

For several decades, the topics of psychological empowerment (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988;
Thomas and Velthouse 1990; Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer, Kizilos and Nason, 1997; Bordin, Bartram
and Casimir, 2007; Gardenhour, 2008; Erten, 2008; Ycel and Demirel, 2012) and citizenship
behaviors (e.g. O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Baruch, OCreevy,
Hind and Gadot, 2004; mer, 2009; Kkbayrak, 2010; erli and Yldrm, 2012) have received a
great deal of interest in the research literature. Empirical studies have shown the positive relationship
of psychological empowerment with positive job attitudes like job satisfaction, commitment; high job
performance and creativity at work (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Allen
and Meyer, 1996).
100
Organ (1988) believed that employees perceived power is more likely to be expressed in extra-role
behavior. The studies of Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) and (Bateman and Organ, 1983)
have revealed that positive job attitudes, like commitment, job satisfaction, and psychological
empowerment predicted organizational citizenship behavior. Several other researchers have confirmed
the linkage between psychological empowerment and commitment, innovative, proactive and
organizational citizenship behavior (Thomas and Tymon, 1994; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Spreitzer,
1995; Spreitzer, De Janasz and Quinn, 1999; Liden et al., 2000; Siegall ve Gardner, 2000; Menon,
2001; Wat and Shaffer, 2005; Aryee and Chen 2006; Kuo, Yin and Li, 2007).
In fact, the relationship between empowerment and voluntary performance behaviors can be explained
with social exchange theory (Bandura, 1977). Wat and Shaffer (2005) suggested that empowered
workers who perceive a high quality social exchange relationship with their manager are likely to
engage in citizenship behaviors. Additionally in accordance with expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964),
an individuals motivation to increase his or her effort in a given task will depend on expectations
concerning effort leading to the desired performance and that desired performance will lead to desired
outcomes. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) pointed out that empowerment practices are intended to
produce behavioral responses from empowered employees that are not based upon cognitive
expectations of reward and punishment. Empowered employees are expected to perform beyond their
formally prescribed roles (Cole, 1995; Randolph, 1995). Organ (1988) suggested that the most likely
way for employees to honor their obligation in a social exchange relationship is to choose to
reciprocate with organizational citizenship behaviors. The reason for this choice is that the employees
do not expect to be rewarded for such extra-role behaviors; neither are they punished if they chose to
withdraw them. Such behaviors include altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue
and sportsmanship (Organ, 1988). Podsakoff et al. (2000) supported the observation that employees,
who experience supportive leader behaviors may, through the norms of reciprocity, adopt
discretionary behaviors like citizenship behavior and prosocial behaviors.
As further, according to psychological empowerment theory (Kanter, 1977; Thomas and Welthouse,
1990; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996, 2008; Chan, Taylor and Markham, 2008), employees who feel a sense of
empowerment are likely to take an active orientation toward their work and perform above and
beyond the call of duty. Meaningful work over which one has individual discretion is likely to lead to
organizational citizenship behaviors because it fosters a sense of identification and involvement in the
overall workplace, not just ones defined work role (Spreiter, 2008; Seibert, Wang and Courtright,
2011). Competence and impact are likely to further encourage OCBs because the employees will feel
capable of achieving positive outcomes in their work unit if they try (Bandura, 1997). Thus,
psychological empowerment has been suggested to be associated with citizenship behaviors and
voluntary performance behaviors.
With that respect, previous research has consistently found that psychological empowerment enhances
job satisfaction and thus indirectly affects citizenship behaviors levels (e.g. Bordin et al., 2007; Yim,
2008; Kim, Losekoot and Milne, 2011; Najafi, Noruzy, Azar, Nazari-Shirkouhi, and Dalvand, 2011).
Consistently, a number of research study conducted in different nations and cultural contexts have
indicated that employees perceptions of psychological empowerment positively influence their
individual in-role and extra-role performance behaviors (e.g. George and Jones, 1997; Conger and
Kanungo, 1988; Sigler and Pearson, 2000; Ben-Zur and Yagil, 2005; Radin, 2006; Cho, 2008; Erten,
2008; Ycel and Demirel, 2012). Atalays (2010) study has demonstrated the positive relationship
between psychological empowerment and citizenship behaviors with a research in Turkish context.
Additionally, Ycel and Demirel (2012) have investigated the effects of psychological empowerment
on organizational citizenship behaviors and have conducted a field study on the employees of a public
organization in Turkey. In that study, psychological empowerment was examined with dimensions
consisting of meaning, compliance, autonomy, impact, and socio-political support, access to strategic
information/resources, and agency culture; and organizational citizenship behaviors with those
consisting of altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. The results of the
study have revealed that the relationships between dimensions of psychological empowerment and
dimensions of citizenship behaviors were positive and thus, it was determined that psychological
empowerment had positive effects on organizational citizenship behaviors (Ycel and Demirel, 2012).
101
Bhatnagar and Sandhu (2005) attempted to identity the strength of relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and psychological empowerment in IT Sector in India and the results of their
study indicated that managers who perceive psychological empowerment in their occupational
environment exhibited citizenship behaviors. Kim et al. (2011) have investigated the impact of
psychological empowerment on organizational citizenship behaviors and the results demonstrated that
all dimensions of psychological empowerment had positive effects on OCB. Seibert, Silver and
Randolph (2011) have provided meta-analytic support for an integrated model specifying the
consequences of psychological empowerment and their study have indicated that psychological
empowerment was positively associated with a broad range of employee outcomes, including job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and contextual performance, and citizenship behaviors.
Moreover, psychological empowerment was also examined as a moderating or mediating variable
influencing the relationships between individual job attitudes and OCB. For instance, Najafi et al.
(2011) have conducted a study to determine causal relations between organizational justice,
psychological empowerment, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and OCB, by examining the
mediating role of psychological empowerment. In Turkey, Erten (2008) have demonstrated the
partial mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between empowering leader
behaviors and employees organizational citizenship behaviors. Tatan (2011) also confirmed the
mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between perceived self-efficacy,
perceived participative organizational climate and individual extra-role performance behaviors with a
research study in nursing context. Moreover, Zhong, Lam and Chen (2011) have addressed the
moderating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between leadermember exchange
(LMX) quality and subordinates organizational citizenship behavior. As a result of Zhong et al.s
(2011) study, it was found that psychological empowerment positively moderated the positive effect
of leader-member exchange on OCB.
Upon the relevant literature, it is seen that studies of the relationship of prosocial affects and voluntary
behaviors have provided evidences for positive relationships with psychological empowerment (e.g.
Meyerson and Kline, 2007; Erten, 2008; Cho, 2008; Atalay, 2010; Jin-Liang and Hai-Zhen, 2012).
Alge, Ballinger, Tangirala and Oakley (2006) also indicated that employees who feel psychologically
empowered are likely to perceive the link between their actions and broader organizational outcomes
and feel more responsibility for helping others over and above what is specified in their job
requirements and exhibiting in voluntary behaviors at work.
Thus, in this study, the important theoretical issue concerning the relationship between psychological
empowerment and voluntary performance behavior is addressed and the core proposition of the theory
in this study is that psychological empowerment will be related to positive forms of work performance
as specifically named as voluntary behaviors. Due to the theoretical background and relevant literature
evidences, voluntary performance behaviors have been proposed as individual-level behavioral
outcomes at work, in particular, has been seen as a key outcome because of the active, positive and
worthwhile behaviors associated with psychological empowerment. This framework thus integrates
over thirty years of theory and empirical research on psychological empowerment and citizenship
behaviors and guides the development of the hypothesis below.
Hypothesis 1: In Turkish Universities, individuals level of psychological empowerment is directly
and positively related to individuals adoption of voluntary performance behaviors.
Hypothesis 1-1: A positive relationship is expected between individuals perception of meaning of job
and voluntary performance behaviors.
Hypothesis 1-2: A positive relationship is expected between individuals perception of personal
development and voluntary performance behaviors.
Hypothesis 1-3: A positive relationship is expected between individuals perception of selfdetermination and voluntary performance behaviors.
Hypothesis 1-4: A positive relationship is expected between individuals perception of initiation and
voluntary performance behaviors.
102
Hypothesis 1-5: A positive relationship is expected between individuals perception of substantial

impact and voluntary performance behaviors.
Hypothesis 1-6: A positive relationship is expected between individuals perception of competency
and voluntary performance behaviors.
The proposed research model in this study integrated psychological empowerment and voluntary
performance behavior is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Research Model of the Study
Psychological Empowerment
-Meaning (H1-1) (+)
-Personal development (H1-2) (+)
-Self-determination (H1-3) (+)
-Initiation (H1-4) (+)
-Substantial Impact (H1-5) (+)
-Competency (H1-6) (+)
H1 (+)
Voluntary Performance
Behaviors
RESEARCH DESIGN
This study focuses on psychological empowerment and its impact on employees behavioral outcome
of voluntary performance behaviors. In particular, this study is designed in order to understand
whether (a) meaning, (b) personal development, (c) self-determination, (d) initiation (e) substantial
impact and (f) competency have relationship with and impact on individuals voluntary performance
behaviors. This study examines these constructs by performing a questionnaire survey on a
predetermined research setting. Thereby, this section provides information related to the research
sample, research instruments, and procedure.
Sample
This research study was performed among the academic staff working in both private and public
universities located in stanbul and Denizli-Turkey. The study sample consisted of 230 academicians
working in various faculties and. For the selection of respondents there was not an age or title
limitation for the sample and data were collected by convenience sampling There was not researcher
interference, the study setting was non-contrived, unit of analysis was individuals and time horizon of
the study was cross-sectional.
Totally 350 questionnaires were distributed and 230 were returned for a response rate of 70%. About
59% of the respondents were female, 58.2% were married, and 35.6% had 1 child. The sample
included a wide age range. About 75% of the respondents were between the ages 2339. Majority of
the sample (46.8%) was assistant professor while 28.2% was associate professor and 10.3% was
lecturer with doctorate degree, 10% was research assistant and 4.2% was professor. The work
experience of the respondents varied between 1 and over 16 years.
Questionnaire Design
In this research study, one self-developed instrument and one standard instrument were used. The
dependent variable (voluntary performance behavior) of the research was measured with the standard
instrument of the scholars of the related research areas (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter,
1990). The independent variable (psychological empowerment) of the research model was measured
with the scale that was developed by Tatan (2011) throughout qualitative and quantitative methods
between the years of 2009-2011 in Istanbul-Turkey. This section will provide brief information about
the relevant measurement instruments used in the survey.
103
Voluntary Performance Behaviors. To measure an individuals voluntary performance behavior, the

Organizational Citizenship Scale (OCBs Scale) of Podsakoff et al. (1990) was used. The OCBs Scale
is considered as the most standard measurement of organizational citizenship behaviors and extra-role
performance behaviors. This scale has 24 items measuring five dimensions of OCB within this scale.
In this research study, the dimensions and the items of the questionnaire were Altruism (5 items1,10,13,15,23), Civic Virtue (4 items-6,9,11,12), Courtesy (5 items-5,8,14,17,20),
Consciensciousness (5 items-3,18,21,22,24), and Sportsmanship (5 items-2,4,7,16,19). Sample
items included I help my colleagues who have high workload and I am always ready to help my
colleagues, and I always obey the rules and regulations even nobody sees or observes me. The
ratings were given on a 5-point itemized rating scale, where 1= totally disagree and 5= totally agree.
Psychological Empowerment. In order to measure individuals psychological empowerment
perception, Tatans (2011) Psychological Empowerment Perception Scale (PEP) was used. Based
on the literature conceptualizations and Spreitzers (1995) four main dimensions of psychological
empowerment, qualitative and quantitative studies were constituted and conducted by Tatan (2011)
in her doctorate dissertation study. As a result of that study, the final scale was composed of 23 items
and measuring the 6 components psychological empowerment perception. The relevant scale was
firstly conducted in nursing context in hospital settings with 6 points Likert type scale from totally
agree to totally disagree and Cronbach Alfa value was .86. As a result of that study, 6 cognitive
perception components were revealed and named as personal development, meaningfulness, selfdeterminism, initiation, substantial impact, and competency (for detailed information see Tatan,
2011). Consequently, it was suggested that the scale could be applied and conducted in different
industries, sectors, occupations, cultural contexts, etc. Later, for the second time, the scale was
conducted in research among the employees working in food sector and as a result of that study, 5
factors were emerged and the Cronbach Alpha value of the scale was .89 Tatan, 2012). Therefore, in
this study, that original scale was used for the third time in order to measure the respondents
psychological empowerment perceptions and also to reevaluate the reliability and validity of the scale.
Thereby, the second section measuring psychological empowerment requested the respondents to
complete 23 items on a 5 point Likert scale (1=Totally Disagree, 5=Totally Agree). The Cronbach
Alpha value of the scale in the current research study was revealed as .88.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
5 items related to psychological cognition of personal development (8,4,7,6,5)

3 items related to psychological cognition of meaning (1,2,3)
4 items related to psychological cognition of self-determination (12,13,14,15)
4 items related to psychological cognition of initiative (16,17,19,18)
4 items related to psychological cognition of substantial impact (21,20,22,23)
3 items related to psychological cognition of competency (9,10,11)
Moreover, the initial section of the survey questionnaire requested the respondents demographic
profile such as gender, age, marital status, number of children, tenure in the current university, etc..
Questions in the personal information section were asked in categorical and interval forms.
Procedure
Three hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed to various universities academicians in
different faculties and departments. The universities were located in Istanbul and in Denizli. Each
university and each department were distributed 350 questionnaires. However, 230 academicians from
7 Universities volunteered to participate in the study and filled the questionnaire. The respondents
were encouraged to complete the questionnaire on the spot or to return the questionnaire after 2-3 days
or a week. The questionnaires were hand-collected by the researches and some of the respondents
preferred to fill the questionnaire via internet. As a result of 2 months study, totally 230 questionnaires
were successfully completed and collected.
104
FINDINGS
This section provides the results of the research study and interpretation of the statistical data.
Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities

This section of the study presents the descriptive statistics of the components of psychological
empowerment and voluntary performance behavior. The results are shown in Table 1. The results
show that the mean score for psychological empowerment is 3.8924. The results indicate that most
respondents have high perceptions of psychological empowerment construct in their organization.
Table 1 also shows that the respondents provide the highest mean score for meaning (4.1120)
followed by personal development (4.0188), self-determination (3.9779), competency (3.9553),
initiation (3.9222), and substantial impact (3.2682). Thereby, the respondents provided the lowest
mean score for substantial impact.
In Table 1, it is also seen that the mean score for voluntary performance behavior is 3.3763. The
results indicate that most respondents have high voluntary performance behaviors towards their job,
organization, and colleagues. It is also seen that the respondents provide the highest mean score for
courtesy (3.8876) followed by sportsmanship (3.3638) and altruism (3.2582). Moreover, the
respondents provide the lower means scores for conscientiousness (3.1541) and civic virtue
(3.2380). The lowest mean score provided by the respondents is conscientiousness (3.1541)
respectively.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary

Performan Behavior Constructs
Variable
Voluntary Performance Behaviors
Altruism
Conscientiousness
Courtesy
Civic virtue
Sportsmanship
Psychological Empowerment
Meaning
Personal development
Self-determination
Competency
Initiation
Substantial impact
N:230
Mean Score
3.3763
3.2582
3.1541
3.8876
3.2380
3.3638
3.8924
4.1120
4.0188
3.9779
3.9553
3.9222
3.2682
Moreover, before testing the hypotheses and conducting regression analysis, series of factors and
reliability tests were performed. The overall psychological empowerment scales reliability value was
revealed as .88. The results showed that the reliability for meaning is 0.92, personal development
(0.91), self-determination (0.89), competency (0.84), initiation (0.86) and substantial impact (0.87) as
being the dimensions of psychological empowerment construct. The results also showed that the
reliability for voluntary performance behaviors based on 24 items is 0.82. As being the dimensions of
voluntary performance behavior construct, the reliability for courtesy is 0.83, sportsmanship (0.81),
altruism (0.84), conscientiousness (0.86), and civic virtue (0.79). The results indicate that all variables
in this study are reliable.
105
The Relationship between Psychological Empowerment Dimensions and

Voluntary Performance Behavior
This section presents the results of testing hypothesis 1 (a positive, direct relationship is expected
between individuals perception of psychological empowerment and voluntary performance
behaviors) and the sub-hypotheses of H1-1 to H1-6. The hypotheses are tested using Pearsons
correlation.
The Relationship between overall Psychological Empowerment and

Initially, in testing the hypothesis 1 by using Pearsons correlation, psychological empowerment is
taken as a total variable of six dimensions (meaning, personal development, self-determination,
initiation, substantial impact, competency). Table 2 presents the results of testing hypothesis 1.
Table 2. Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary Performance Behaviors
r
p
N
r
p
N
Psychological
Empowerment
Behaviors
Psychological
Empowerment
1
230
0.544
0.000
230
Behaviors
0.544
0.000
230
1
230
The results show that there is a significant, positive and moderate correlation between psychological
empowerment construct and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.544). Therefore,
hypothesis 1 is accepted. Such a result is consistent with the literature which has evidences about the
relationship between psychological empowerment and extra-role performance behaviors (OCBs) (e.g.
Spreitzer, 1995, 2008; Argyris, 1998; Petter et al., 2002; Wall, Wood and Leach, 2004; Patterson et
al., 2004; Atalay, 2010; Seibert et al., 2011).
The Relation of Meaning with Voluntary Performance Behavior

Hypothesis 1-1states thata positive, direct relationship is expected between individuals perception of
meaning of job and voluntary performance behaviors. Table 3 presents the results of testing
hypothesis 1-1.
Table 3. Meaning and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Meaning
Voluntary
Performance
r
p
N
r
p
N
Meaning
1
0.000
230
0.586
0.000
230
0.586
0.000
230
1
230
The results show that there is a significant and moderate correlation between meaning dimension of
psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.586). Therefore,
hypothesis 1-1 is accepted.
106
The Relation of Personal Development with Voluntary Performance

Behavior
Hypothesis 1-2 states that a positive, direct relationship is expected between individuals perception
of personal development and voluntary performance behaviors. Table 4 presents the results of testing
hypothesis 1-2.
Table 4. Personal Development and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Personal
Development
Voluntary
Performance
r
p
N
r
p
N
Self Development
1
0.000
230
0.415
0.000
230
0.415
0.000
230
1
230
The results show that there is a significant and weak correlation between personal development and
voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.415). Therefore, Hypothesis 1-2 is supported.
The Relation of Self-Determination with Voluntary Performance

Behavior
of self determination and voluntary performance behaviors. Table 5 presents the results of testing
hypothesis 1-3.
Table 5. Self-Determination and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Self-Determination
Voluntary
Performance
r
p
N
r
p
N
Self-Determination
1
230
0.724
0.000
230
0.724
0.000
230
1
230
The results show that there is a significant and strong correlation between self-determination
dimension of psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.724).
The results indicate that self-determination is a strong dimension of psychological empowerment that
is in relation to individuals voluntary performance behaviors. The results imply that selfdetermination is important in enhancing employees to exhibit voluntary and extra-role behaviors and
in relation with voluntary performance behaviors. Therefore, hypothesis 1-3 is supported. Such result
is consistent with Deci and Ryans (2000) study which has demonstrated a significant relationship
between self-determination in the organization and individuals performance behaviors. Additionally,
Deci and Ryan (2000) indicated a significant association between intrinsic-extrinsic motivation factors
(rewarding, recognition, autonomy etc.) and individuals work performance.
The Relation of Initiation with Voluntary Performance Behavior

of initiation and voluntary performance behaviors. Table 6 presents the results of testing hypothesis 14.
107
Table 6. Initiation and Voluntary Performance Behavior

r
p
N
r
p
N
Initiation
Initiation
1
230
0.684
0.000
230
0.684
0.000
230
1
230
The results show that there is a significant and moderate correlation between initiation dimension of
psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.684). The results
indicate that initiation is a dimension of psychological empowerment that is in relation to individuals
voluntary performance behaviors specific to the current research sample. Therefore, hypothesis 1-4 is
accepted.
The Relation of Substantial Impact with Voluntary Performance

Behavior
of substantial impact and voluntary performance behaviors. Table 7 presents the results of testing
hypothesis 1-5.
Table 7. Substantial Impact and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Substantial Impact
Voluntary
Performance
r
p
N
r
p
N
Substantial Impact
1
0.000
230
0.304
0.000
230
0.304
0.000
230
1
230
The results show that there is a significant and weak correlation between substantial impact and
The Relation of Competency with Voluntary Performance Behavior

of competency and voluntary performance behaviors. Table 8 presents the results of testing hypothesis
1-6.
Table 8. Competency and Voluntary Performance Behavior
Competency
Voluntary
Performance
r
p
N
r
p
N
Competency
1
0.000
230
0.533
0.000
230
0.533
0.000
230
1
230
The results show that there is a significant and moderate correlation between competency and
108
Multiple Regressions for Further Analysis

In order to obtain a further understanding about the impact of the six dimensions of psychological
empowerment on individuals voluntary performance behaviors, a multiple regression analysis was
performed. Table 9 presents the results.
Table 9. Multiple Regression Analysis for Dimensions of Psychological

Empowerment and Voluntary Performance Behaviors
Dependent Variable:
Independent Variables
Meaning
Personal Development
Self-Determination
Initiation
Substantial Impact
Competency
R = 0.613;
R2 = 0.546;
Beta
0.425
0.129
0.432
0.368
0.202
0.396
F = 90.205
t value
4.117
4.882
5.099
5.658
5.772
2.388
p
value
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
p = 0.000
The dimensions of psychological empowerment explain 54.6% of the variance in voluntary

performance behaviors. Personal development dimension has the lowest impact on voluntary
behavior with the p value of 0.001 > 0,05 (=0.129). The results in table 9 shows that the six
dimensions of psychological empowerment contribute 54.6% in impacting voluntary performance
behaviors. Among the six dimensions of psychological empowerment, self-determination has the most
important impact on voluntary behaviors (p=0.000; =0.432).
As it is presented on Figure 2, all six dimensions of psychological empowerment perception is
significantly and positively related to the voluntary performance behaviors. Thereby, it can be
suggested that all six dimensions of psychological empowerment have a significant explanatory power
on the voluntary performance behavior of the individuals and have a contribution for the exposition of
voluntary behaviors despite the weak values of beta coefficients for personal development and
substantial impact.
109
Figure 2. Research Model of Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary

Performance Behaviors
Meaning
=0,425
Personal Development
=0,129
=0,432
Self-determinism
=0,368
Voluntary
Performance
Behaviors
Initiative
=0,202
Substantial impact
Competency
=0,396
Consequently, the further analysis of multiple regression has confirmed the hypothesized relationship
between psychological empowerment perceptions and voluntary behaviors and it was revealed that the
components of the psychological empowerment (independent variable) have impact on the voluntary
behaviors (dependent variable).
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Practitioners and scholars have advocated the importance of viewing individuals as active subjects,
who are able to engage in prosocial and voluntary work behaviors that facilitate positive changes in
themselves and their work environment (Ashford and Cummings, 1985; Bateman and Crant, 1993;
Crant, 2000; Grant and Ashford, 2008). Individuals are not merely passive beings of their work
environment; rather they can make conscious decisions to exhibit in altruistic behaviors, extra-role
behaviors and voluntary efforts (Bandura, 1997; Cameron, Dutton and Quinn, 2003; Cameron and
Lavine, 2006; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Voluntary performance behaviors at work are
those self-initiated, change oriented, and intimate behaviors that can facilitate positive change within
the internal organization (Parker and Collins, 2010; Searle, 2011).
In todays organizations, though the increasing technology and changing economic challenges, the
prosocial, helping and voluntary work behaviors of their individuals are becoming more essential.
This situation is seen important particularly in educational and academic settings. Voluntary work
behaviors are positively related to individual job satisfaction and identification (Ashford and Black,
1996) and individual job performance (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998; Grant, Parker and Collins, 2009;
Griffin, Parker and Mason, 2010; Searle, 2011). These positive consequences of voluntary work
behavior illustrate the potential impact that voluntary work behaviors may have within the workplace
context.
Thus, a greater understanding of the antecedents of voluntary work behaviors becomes an important
subject. Previous scholars and researchers have mentioned that both individual differences and
contextual factors are antecedents to citizenship behaviors, prosocial and voluntary performance
behaviors (Crant, 2000; Parker, Bindl and Strauss, 2010). To date, scholars have largely emphasized
individual differences as antecedents to voluntary work behavior (Ashford and Black, 1996; Morrison
and Phelps, 1999; Parker, 2000; Grant and Ashford, 2008). For example, desire for control (Ashford
and Black, 1996), proactive personality (Parker and Collins, 2010), general self-efficacy and felt
110
responsibility (Morrison and Phelps, 1999; Tatan, 2011) have all been reported as antecedents to
voluntary work behaviors. Scholars have also proposed that cognitive motivational states may explain
the process by which individual differences influence voluntary work behaviors (Parker, Williams and
Turner, 2006). One positive motivational state that has been examined as a possible independent,
moderating or mediating variable is psychological empowerment (e.g. Erten, 2008; Seibert et al.,
2011; Zhong et al., 2011).
Although relatively a few research has been carried out in this area, the current research study was
carried out for two main reasons. Firstly, in line with Vroom and Deci (1974, 2000) and Spreitzer
(1995, 1997, 2008) it is likely that individuals believe that the additional effort involved in extra-role
or voluntary behaviors indirectly or directly improve their work performance, satisfaction,
commitment, and increasing their intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Based on the arguments of the
scholars, job autonomy, self-efficacy, control and achievement could be the issues related with those
voluntary behaviors at work upon the implications of the theory of social behaviors as exchange
(Blau, 1964; Bandura, 1977). However, the main suggestion of the authors of the current study was
that the perception of being psychologically empowered or having power, control, autonomy or
personal competency might not always be related to altruistic and voluntary behaviors work
behaviors. In other words, individuals may have low levels of psychological cognitions related to
empowerment states but may engage in high or low levels of voluntary work behaviors. Thus, there
could be a conflict or consistency between being powered and having intimate will towards
voluntary work behaviors. Therefore, this study was conducted for getting an understanding of the
relationship between individuals perceptions of psychological empowerment state and their voluntary
performance behaviors at work based on the foundational theories and basic assumptions of the study.
Secondly, as we have discussed before, the main purposes of this study was to use a self-developed
original psychological empowerment perception scale. Therefore, it was important to examine the
relationship between the dimensions of this scale-self-development, meaning, self-determination,
initiation, substantial impact, and competency- and voluntary performance behaviors as being the
dependent variable of the studys research model. At this point, we note that the use of an original
instrument measuring the dimensions of psychological empowerment could provide knowledge if the
dimensions conceptually and operationally explained the voluntary performance behaviors.
With that respect, in this study, the process through which individual psychological empowerment
cognitions are antecedents to voluntary performance behaviors was examined with correlation
analysis with each sub-dimension of psychological empowerment. According to the correlation
analysis results, it was seen that each of the original sub dimension of psychological empowerment
was significantly correlated with voluntary performance behaviors with moderate or high coefficient
values. The means of the dimensions of both psychological empowerment and voluntary behavior
constructs were examined and it was seen that the highest mean score was for meaning (4.1120)
followed by personal development (4.0188), self-determination (3.9779), competency (3.9553),
initiation (3.9222), and substantial impact (3.2682). The total mean score for voluntary
performance behavior was 3.3763. The results indicated that the respondents provided the highest
mean score for courtesy (3.8876) followed by sportsmanship (3.3638) and altruism (3.2582).
However, the results revealed the lower means scores for conscientiousness (3.1541) and civic
virtue (3.2380). Thereby, it can be suggested that the academicians in the research sample had low
levels of substantial impact and initiation perceptions respectively, where they had higher levels of
perceptions of self-determination, competency and personal development which may be the indicators
of state of having power at work. Moreover, according to the mean scores of courtesy,
sportsmanship, and altruism, it can be suggested that the academicians have altruistic and helping
behaviors with sportsmanship which may be the indicators of intimate will. As such, the results
showed that the research sample had perceptions of both power and intimate will.
After these examinations, correlation and regression analyses were conducted in order to understand
how are the sub dimensions of psychological empowerment are related to voluntary performance
behaviors. The results indicated that there was a significant, positive and moderate correlation
between psychological empowerment construct and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000;
r=0.544). The results showed that there was a significant and moderate correlation between meaning
111
dimension and voluntary behavior (p=0.000; r=0.586), a significant and weak correlation between
personal development and voluntary behavior (p=0.000; r=0.415). Moreover, the results revealed a
significant and strong correlation between self-determination dimension and voluntary behavior
(p=0.000; r=0.724). The initiation dimension was significantly and moderately correlated with
voluntary behavior (p=0.000; r=0.684) and substantial impact was significantly and weakly correlated
with voluntary behavior (p=0.000; r=0.304). Finally, competency dimension had a significant and
moderate correlation with voluntary behavior (p=0.000; r=0.533). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 and the
hypotheses from 1-1 to 1-6 were supported.
For further analyses, multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the impact of dimensions
of psychological empowerment on individuals voluntary performance behaviors. The results revealed
that total psychological empowerment explained 54.6% of the variance in voluntary performance
behaviors. Personal development dimension had the lowest impact on voluntary behavior (p=0.001
> 0,05; =0.129) while self-determination had the most important impact on voluntary behaviors
(p=0.001 > 0,05; =0.432). Thereby, it was indicated that all six dimensions of psychological
empowerment had significant explanatory power on voluntary performance behavior construct and
have a contribution for voluntary behaviors at work.
With that sense, it is implied that these results are in line with the theory and empirical evidences in
the literature. The results are consistent with the implications of social exchange theory principles
(Deluga, 1998; Bandura, 2000), the psychological empowerment theory (Konger and Kanungo, 1988;
Thomas and Velthouse, 1990, Spreitzer, 1995; Menon, 2001) and OCB theory (Podsakoff, 1995;
Podsakoff et al., 1997; Bordin et al., 2007). It is also worth to note that the result support the literature
which has evidences about the relationship between psychological empowerment and voluntary
behaviors (prosocial, extra-role, OCBs etc.) (Spreitzer, 1995; Argyris, 1998; Baker et al., 1996; Mills,
1994; Patterson et al., 2004; Organ et al., 2006; Petter et al., 2002; Wall et al., 2004; Baruch,
OCreevy, Hind and Vigoda-Gadot, 2004; Meyerson and Kline, 2008; Seibert et al., 2011).
Additionally, since one of the main purposes of this study was to use Tatans (2011) psychological
empowerment scale as an original measurement instrument, we find essential to evaluate the findings
related to the statistical reports of the instrument in this research study. Within the third application of
the scale, the results showed that each dimension of the scale revealed high reliability values and the
overall reliability of the scale was revealed as .88. Moreover, it is interesting that the examination of
the factor structure of our voluntary behavior construct has revealed that the dimensions of the
variable were indicating the individuals autonomic behaviors, altruistic and self-determined voluntary
predispositions to help other colleagues and people in the workplace. These dimensions were
measured with the standard instrument of Podsakoff et al. (1997, 2000) for evaluating the citizenship
behaviors of individuals. As a result of statistical analysis of this study, it was seen that the
dimensions were fitting the implications of each dimension of standard scale of OCBs (Organ et al.,
2006; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Therefore, in our research context, the voluntary
behaviors inferred the units of individual prosocial and citizenship behaviors which was conceptually
consistent with the literature.
As further, we addressed that the self-determination dimension of psychological empowerment
implicating a psychological state and cognitive processing within an individuals inter world related
with self choice and volunteer performance behaviors. In this respect, we have been attracted by the
strong correlation between self-determination and voluntary behavior in this study and note that this
finding is consistent with the implications of Deci and Ryans (1985, 2000) Self-Determination
Theory and adds contribution to the conceptualization of psychological empowerment theory.
Moreover, in the psychological empowerment construct, the concepts were the dimensions of the
psychological empowerment scale which have been developed within Turkish context (Tatan, 2011)
and as being individuals intrapersonal cognitive processing, these dimensions revealed significant
relationships with the standard dimensions of voluntary performance behaviors. Thus, it is suggested
that the conceptualization of psychological empowerment was operationalized with the relevant
dimensions of meaning, personal development, self-determination, initiation, substantial
impact, and competency. With that respect, we would like to contribute to the research field by
112
adopting Thomas and Velthouses (1990) and Spreitzers (1995) conceptualization of the
psychological empowerment concept (meaning, competence, self-determination and impact) but also
to utilize a new and original measurement instrument in order to enable the integration of our
conceptualization of psychological empowerment concept (self-development, meaning, selfdetermination, initiation, substantial impact, and competence).
Consequently, we note that we have constituted the background assumption of the study and have
expected that the overall voluntary performance behaviors would be an outcome of the
psychologically empowered individuals who have high power, self-determination, meaning, and
substantial impact believes and who are having intimate will to exhibit voluntary behaviors that are
discretionary efforts at work. It is worth to suggest that the literature background and the foundational
theories supports the conclusion of this study.
However, as psychological empowerment in this research study had significant impact on voluntary
performance behaviors, it is supposed that there are other variables or factors that might have effect
voluntary behaviors such as personal, contextual, environmental, situational, demographical, etc.
Additionally, within the research model of this study, we assumed that psychological empowerment
perception would to be directly associated with voluntary performance behaviors. However, as we
have also discussed within the conceptual part of the study, psychological empowerment could be
examined as a mediator or moderator that plays a role on the relationship between a number of
organizational, individual, and contextual variables and voluntary behaviors.
Finally, our hope is that this study contributes to the knowledge of scholars and the literature
regarding the relationship between psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behaviors
or citizenship behaviors at work. Besides, our hope is that this study contributes to psychological
empowerment theory and literature with both theoretical and operational implications. As further, we
suggest that the concept voluntary performance behavior with its philosophical and sociological
definitions may contribute to the knowledge about prosocial, discretionary, and extra-role behaviors
which have been examined under the construct of citizenship behaviors. At last, we hope that this
study will contribute to future academic researches and theoretical developments within the
Organizational Behavior and Management and Organization sciences.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

In order to improve the understanding of these relationships, further research should be conducted to
overcome some of the limitations of the present study. These limitations include (1) the fact that the
present sample was drawn mostly from a Turkish academic population, all working in universities, (2)
the use of self-report measures of voluntary performance and, (3) the exposure to common method
bias. Therefore, further studies should cross-validate these results and also be conducted on a crosscultural basis, with a broader spectrum of types of organizations or sectors. Additionally, it is
suggested that future studies should be undertaken to consider the broad and complementary range of
variables involving organizational, personal and situational factors. We would refer to different
demographics for the examination of the psychological empowerment state such as gender, age,
tenure, title, etc. Moreover, although research and theory suggest that there is a relationship between
psychological empowerment and voluntary behaviors, there exists both limited and conflicting
evidence as to whether psychological empowerment is a cause of voluntary performance, vice-versa,
or the two are reciprocally related. Therefore, it is also suggested that, in further studies, such
reciprocal relationships could be examined.
113
REFERENCES
Alge, B.J., Ballinger, G.A., Tangirala, S. and Oakley, J.L. (2006). Information privacy in
organizations: Empowering creative and extra-role performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(1), pp.221-232.
Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, pp.252276.
Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperors new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76(3),
pp.98-105.
Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (2006). Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: Antecedents, the
mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59,
pp.793-801.
Ashford, S. J. and Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for
control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (2), pp.199-214.
Ashford, S. J. and Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of the
information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, pp.6779.
Atalay, C. G. (2010). Personel Glendirme ve rgtsel Vatandalk Davran Balamnda nsan
Kaynaklar Ynetimi, Detay Publishing, Ankara, Turkey.
Baker, R. S., Field, J. M., Schroeder, R. G. and Sinha, K. K. (1996). Impact of work teams on
manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4),
pp.867-890.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, pp.191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E. A.
Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp.120-136). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bar-Tal, D. (1976). Prosocial Behavior: Theory and Research, New York: John Willey and Sons.
Bartunek, J.M. and Spreitzer, G.(2006). The Interdisciplinary Career of a Popular Construct Used in
Management: Empowerment in the Late 20th Century. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3),
pp.255-273.
Baruch, Y., OCreevy, M.F., Hind, P. and Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2004). Prosocial behavior and job
performance: Does the need for control and the need for achievement make a difference?. Social
Behavior and Personality, 32(4), pp.399-412.
Bateman, T. S. and Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good solider: The relationship
between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, pp.587595.
Bateman, T. S. and Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 14, pp.103118.
Ben-Zur, H. and Yagil, D. (2005). The relationship between empowerment, aggressive behaviors of
customers, coping, and burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(1),
pp.81- 99.
114
Bhatnagar, J. and Sandhu, S. (2005). Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior in IT Managers: A Talent Retention Tool. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 40, pp.449469.
Bierstedt, R. (1950). An Analysis of Social Power. American Sociological Review, 15(6), pp.730-736.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, Wiley.
Bogler, R. and Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers organizational
commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 20, pp.277289.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?
Academy of Management Review, 24(1), pp.82-98.
Bordin, C.; Bartram, T. and Casimir, G. (2007). The antecedents and consequences of psychological
empowerment among Singaporean IT employees. Management Research News, 30(1), pp.34-46.
Borman, W. C. and Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning of personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, pp.99-109.
Brief, A. P. and Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy of Management
Review, 11(4), pp.710-725.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E. and Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cameron, K.S. and Lavine, M. (2006) Making the Impossible Possible: Leading Extraordinary
Performance. San Francisco, BerretKoehler.
Chan, Y. H., Taylor, R. R., and Markham, S. (2008). The role of subordinates' trust in a social
exchange-driven psychological empowerment process. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(4), pp.444467.
Chiang,C.F. and Hsieh,T.S.(2012). The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological
empowerment on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, pp.180-190.
Cho, T.J. (2008). An integrative model of empowerment and individual performance under conditions
of organizational individualism and collectivism in public sector organizations. Unpublished
Doctorate Dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York, Department of Public
Administration and Policy.
Cole, N. (1995). How Employee Empowerment Improves Manufacturing Performance. Academy of
Management Executive, 9(1), pp.80-81.
Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 13, pp.471-482.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26 (3), pp.435-462.
Cutler, H.C. (2000). Mutluluk Sanat, Dharma Publishing, Istanbul, Turkey.
Daft, R.L. (2000). Management, 2nd Edition, Orlando:Dryden Press.
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York. U.S.A.
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), pp.227-268.
Dubeski, N. (2001). Durkheims Altruism as the Source of His Social Holism: A Discussion of the
Viability of a Social Basis for Moral Principles. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 5(3),
http://www.sociology.org/archive.html.
115
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A. and Spinrad, T. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Social emotional, and personality development (6th ed.,Vol. 3, pp.
646718). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ergeneli, A., Sag, G., Ari, I., and Metin, S. (2007). Psychological empowerment and its relationship to
trust in immediate managers. Journal of Business Research, 60, pp.4156.
Erten, B. (2008). The role of psychological empowerment between managerial practices and
organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation. Marmara University, Social
Sciences Institute, Istanbul, Turkey.
Feldman, J. M., and Lynch, J.G. (1988). Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement
on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (3), pp.421-435.
Gardenhour, C.R. (2008). Teachers Perceptions of Empowerment in Their Work Environments as
Measured by the Psychological Empowerment Instrument. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, East
Tennessee State University, U.S.A.
George, J. M. and Brief, A. P. (2000). Feeling good doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at
work organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), pp.310-329.
George, J. M. and Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance,
10, pp.153-170.
Grant, A. M. and Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 28, pp.3-34.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S. and Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor
reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology , 62, pp.31-55.
Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 28, pp.334.
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K. and Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive
and proactive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1), pp.174-182.
Hackman J.R., Lawler, E.E. and Porter, L.W. (1983). Perspectives on behavior in organizations, (2nd
edition) New York: McGraw Hill.
Hay, D. F. (1994). Prosocial development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, pp.2971.
Honold, L. (1997). A review of the literature on employee empowerment. Empowerment in
Organizations, 5(4), pp.202 212.
erli L. and Yldrm, M.H. (2012). rgtsel sinisizm ve rgtsel vatandalk davran arasndaki
iliki: salk sektrnde bir aratrma. Journal of Organization and Management Sciences, 4(1),
pp.167-176.
mer, H.P. (2009). Contextual and dispositional antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors:
Does occupation make a difference?. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, Management Department,
Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Jin-Liang, W. and Hai-Zhen, W. (2012). The influences of psychological empowerment on work
attitude and behavior in Chinese organizations. Journal of Business Management, 6 (30), pp.89388947.
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Karada, E. and Mutaflar, I. (2009). Prososyal Davran Ekseninde zgecilik zerine Teorik Bir
zmleme. Journal of Philosophy, 8, pp.41-70.
Kim, B.P., Losekoot, E. and Milne, S. (2011). Impact of Psychological Empowerment for Individual
Service Workers. The 2 nd International Research Symposium in Service Management Yogyakarta,
Indonesia, 26 30 July, pp.392-401.
116
Koberg, C. S., Boss, W., Senjem, J. C., and Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of
empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group and Organization
Management, 34(1), pp.71-91.
Kohn, A. (1990). The Brighter Side of Human Nature: Altruism and Empathy in Everyday Life, New
York: Basic Books, Inc.
Konovsky, M. A. and Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, pp.253- 266.
Kkbayrak, R. (2010). An integrative model of transformational leadership, organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished Masters
Dissertation, Department of Business Administration, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey.
Kuo, H.T., Yin, T.J.C. and Li, I.C. (2007). Relationship between organizational empowerment and job
satisfaction perceived by nursing assistant at long-term care facilities. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17,
pp.3059-3066.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of the
impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
pp.527-545.
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, 85 (3), pp.407-416.
Melhem, Y. (2004). The antecedents of customer-contact employees empowerment. Journal of
Employment Relations, 26, pp.72-93.
Menon, S.T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 50(1), pp.153-180.
Messer, B. A. E. and White, F. A. (2006). Employees mood, perceptions of fairness, and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(1), pp.65-82.
Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyerson, S.L. and Kline, T.J.B. (2008). Psychological and environmental empowerment:
Antecedents and consequences. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 29(5), pp.444460.
Mills, D.Q. (1994). The GEM principle: Six steps to creating a high performance organization. Essex
Junction, VT, Omne.
Morrison, E. W. and Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (4), pp.403-419.
Motowidlo, S. J. and Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), pp.475-480.
Najafi, S., Noruzy, A., Azar, H.K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. and Dalvand, M.R. (2011). Investigating the
relationship between organizational justice, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical model. African
Journal of Business Management, 5 (13), pp.5241-5248.
Nantel-Vivier, A. (2010). Patterns and Correlates of Prosocial Behavior Development. Unpublished
Doctorate Dissertation. Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, U.S.A.
OReilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The
effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77(3), pp.492-499.
117
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw
and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (12, pp. 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Organ, D. W. and Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), pp.157-164.
Organ, D. W. and Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors
of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, pp.775- 802.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Organ, D.W. and J.P. Near. (1985). Cognition Versus Affect in Measures of Job Satisfaction.
International Journal of Psychology, 20, pp.241-253.
Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role
orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49 (3),
pp.447-469.
Parker, S. K. and Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple
proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36 (3), pp.633-662.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K. and Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36 (4), pp.827-856.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M. and Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior
at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3), pp.636-652.
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A. and Wall, T.D. (2004). Integrated manufacturing, empowerment, and
company performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, pp.641-665.
Petter, J., Byrnes, P., Choi, D., Fegan, F. and Miller, R. (2002). Dimension and patterns in employee
empowerment: Assessing what matters to street-level bureaucrats. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 12(3), pp.377-400.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the
quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), pp.262-270.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, pp.107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bacharach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
future research. Journal of Management, 26, pp.513563.
Price, J. L. and Mueller, C. W. (1986). Absenteeism and Turnover of Hospital Employees. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and
democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Randolph, W.A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, 23 (4),
pp.19-50.
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychological Association, 55(1), pp.6878.
118
Safrit, R.D. (2007). When Ability and Will Combine: Volunteer Motivations and Incentives. The
International Journal of Volunteer Administration, 24(5), pp.1-4.
Sagie, A. and Koslowsky, M. (2000). Participation and Empowerment in Organizations: Modeling,
Effectiveness, and Applications, California: Sage Publications.
Searle, T.P. (2011). A Multilevel Examination of Proactive Work Behaviors: Contextual and
Individual Differences as Antecedents. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, Faculty of The Graduate
College at the University of Nebraska, U.S.A.
Seibert, S.E., Silver, S.R. and Randolph, V.A. (2004). Taking Empowerment to the Next Level: A
Multiple-level Model of Empowerment, Performance, and Satisfaction. Academy of Management
Journal, 47 (3), pp.332-349.
Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H. (2011). Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological
and Team Empowerment in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. 96(5), pp.981-1003.
Seligman, M.E.P. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology, an Introduction. American
Psychologist, 55(1), pp.5-14.
Sigler, T.H. and Pearson C. M. (2000). Creating An Empowering Culture: Examining the Relationship
Between Organizational Culture and Perceptions of Empowerment. Journal of Quality Management,
5, pp.27-52.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. and Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, pp.655-663.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,
and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), pp.1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996) Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(2), pp.483-504.
Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on
empowerment at work. In J. Barling and C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior
(pp. 5472). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C. and Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of
psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, pp.511-526.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. and Nason, S. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of
Management, 23, pp.679704.
Tatan, S. (2011). The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment on the Relationship between
Participative Organizational Climate, Self-efficacy and Individual Performance Behaviors.
Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, Marmara University, Social Sciences Institute, Department of
Organizational Behavior, Istanbul, Turkey.
Tatan, S. (2012). Bir pozitif psikoloji kavram olarak rgtle zdelemenin psikolojik glendirme
algs ve gnll performans davran arasndaki ilikide ara deiken rolnn deerlendirilmesi:
Gda sektrnde yaplan bir aratrma. Journal of Organization and Management Sciences, 4(1),
pp.227-238..
Thoits, P.A. and Hewitt, L.N. (2001). Volunteer Work and Well-Being. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 42, pp.115131.
Thomas, K. W. and Tymon, W. G. (1994). Does empowerment always work: Understanding the role
of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation? Journal of Management Systems, 6(1), pp.39-54.
Thomas, K. W. and Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive
model of intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, pp.666681.
119
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct
and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal , 41 (1), pp.108-119.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L. and McLean-Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (17, pp. 215-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. and Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: construct
redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp.765-802.
Van Scotter, J. R. and Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as
separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), pp.525-531.
Vroom, V. and Deci, E. (1974). Management and motivation. Hammondsworth: Penguin.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford, England: Wiley.
Wall, T. D., Wood, S. J. and Leach, D. J. (2004). Empowerment and performance. In C. L. Cooper
and I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (19, pp. 146). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York.
Wat, D. and Shaffer, M.A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational
citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel
Review, 34, pp.406-422.
Williams, L. J. and Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, pp.601617.
Wilson, J. and Musick, M. (1997). Who Cares? Toward an Integrated Theory of Volunteer Work.
American Sociological Review, 62, pp.694713.
Yim, H.K. (2008). Psychological Empowerment of Salespeople: The Construct, Its Inducement, and
Consequences on Customer Relationships. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, Drextel University,
U.S.A.
Ycel, . and Demirel, Y. (2012). Psikolojik Glendirmenin rgtsel Vatandalk Davranna Etkisi
zerine Bir Aratrma. Kocaeli University, Social Sciences Institute Journal, 23, pp.19 48.
Zhong, J. A., Lam, W. and Chen, Z. (2011). Relationship between leader-member exchange and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Examining the moderating role of empowerment. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 28, pp.609-626,
Zimmerman, M.A. (1990). Taking Aim on Empowerment Research: On the Distinction Between
Psychological and Individual Conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18 (1),
pp.169-177.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995) Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 23, pp.581599.
120

095 an Empirical Research on the Relationship Between Individuals Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary Performance Behaviors an Assessment of the Combination of Pyschological Power and Intimate Will

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

095 an Empirical Research on the Relationship Between Individuals Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary Performance Behaviors an Assessment of the Combination of Pyschological Power and Intimate Will

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

AN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THE

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Statement of the Problem

Significance of the Study

The Structure of the Study

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

development of theoretical framework that approached constructs such as psychological

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Prior Research on Psychological

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Voluntary Performance Behavior: Understanding Intimate Will

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

The Relational Model

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Hypothesis 1-5: A positive relationship is expected between individuals perception of substantial

Figure 1. Research Model of the Study

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Voluntary Performance Behaviors. To measure an individuals voluntary performance behavior, the

5 items related to psychological cognition of personal development (8,4,7,6,5)

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

The Relationship between Psychological Empowerment Dimensions and

The Relationship between overall Psychological Empowerment and

Table 2. Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary Performance Behaviors

The Relation of Meaning with Voluntary Performance Behavior

Table 3. Meaning and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

The Relation of Personal Development with Voluntary Performance

Table 4. Personal Development and Voluntary Performance Behavior

The Relation of Self-Determination with Voluntary Performance

Table 5. Self-Determination and Voluntary Performance Behavior

The Relation of Initiation with Voluntary Performance Behavior

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Table 6. Initiation and Voluntary Performance Behavior

The Relation of Substantial Impact with Voluntary Performance

Table 7. Substantial Impact and Voluntary Performance Behavior

The Relation of Competency with Voluntary Performance Behavior

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Multiple Regressions for Further Analysis

Table 9. Multiple Regression Analysis for Dimensions of Psychological

Voluntary Performance Behaviors

The dimensions of psychological empowerment explain 54.6% of the variance in voluntary

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Figure 2. Research Model of Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Bhatnagar, J. and Sandhu, S. (2005). Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Citizenship

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

S-ar putea să vă placă și