UNDERSTANDING PERCEIVED EMPOWERMENT: THE ROLE OF PERSONAL NEEDS AND TASK CONTEXT. Alice Hiu Ying Hon SUMMARY

UNDERSTANDING PERCEIVED EMPOWERMENT: THE ROLE OF PERSONAL NEEDS AND TASK CONTEXT Alice Hiu Ying Hon SUMMARY This study examined the influence of individual needs and task characteristics on a multifaceted definition of perceived empowerment through the lens of interactional approach. Respondents were Hong Kong Chinese employees and most of them were at lower or nonmanagerial level employed in business organizations. The significant findings indicate that perceived empowerment may be predicted by individual characteristics (need for achievement, need for power), task situations (receipt of task feedback, competency-based reward system, participation in goal-setting), and their interaction terms (participation in goal-setting with the two individual characteristics). Limitations of the study and implications for future research are discussed. 1

INTRODUCTION Employee empowerment has known to be an important managerial trend in an organization because it offers the potential to positively influence outcomes that benefit both individuals and organizations. Most studies have, therefore, begun to develop comprehensive models for better understand the functional role of empowerment using demographic, job design, personal factors, relational and social structural variables (e.g. Koberg, Boss, Senjem & Goodman, 1999; Spreitzer, 1996; Thorlakson & Murray, 1996). The outcomes of perceived empowerment have shown to be positively related to work satisfaction, job performance, organizational commitment (Liden, Wayne & Sparrowe, 2000), intrinsic motivation (Gagne, Senecal & Koestner, 1997), managerial effectiveness (Spreitzer, Kizilos & Nason, 1997) and organizational innovation (Spreitzer, 1995). Given that empowerment is not only about changing workplace managerial practice, the changes must be accepted by the workers. Prior research has seldom addressed the personality that moderates the relationship between task situation and empowerment. However, in the workplace, task situation as largely designed by the organization rather than by employees. Although much is known about the functional and outcome of perceived empowerment, there has been little research that examines the relationship of person-task interacting effects on perceived empowerment, which may ultimately lead to different results. Thus, this study argues that different task settings may induce different psychological reactions among employees. Interactionist argued that an individual s perception and behavior in an organization changes the situation and the person over a period of time (Bandura, 1991; Bowers, 1973; Caplan & Harrison, 1993; Terborg, 1981). It is the balance between situational characteristics and individual needs that characterizes this 2

perspective. This theoretical argument offers the potential to enhance the existing knowledge in the empowerment literature by tapping the interacting effects from task situations and individual characteristics on perceived empowerment. The significance of this study is that it systematically investigates perceived empowerment by integrating the interactional approach to formulate a conceptual model. In addition, there is evidence that perceived empowerment has relied primarily on Western samples and focused on top managers, this study propose that the person-task interaction may be useful for analyzing the nature of empowerment among Chinese people in Hong Kong. Testing this concept in a Chinese setting may be particularly valuable. The recent Asian financial crisis, for example, has captured many scholars attention on empowering employees because firms are in the process of downsizing (e.g. Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely & Fuller, 2001). Based on data obtained from Hong Kong Chinese employees, the objective of this study was to examine some individual and situational characteristics on perceived empowerment among low level employees in the workplace. It will be useful to ascertain the generalizability of findings in the extant literature to a non-western setting. LITERATURE REVIEW The most significant attempts in the development of empowerment theory have been taken by Spreitzer (1995). Based on the multidimensional conception of empowerment suggested by Conger and Kanungo (1988) and developed by Thomas and Velthouse (1990), Spreitzer (1995) defined empowerment as increased task motivation resulting from an individual s positive orientation to his or her work role. In Spreitzer s view (1995), the four dimensional scales of empowerment are meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Theoretically, meaning refers to the 3

meaningfulness of work; competence relates to individuals knowledge and skill that they can perform the task well; self-determination refers to the freedom or autonomy; and impact relates to influence of the work and is just the opposite of helplessness. In their opinions, empowerment has produced two streams of perspectives. First, empowerment can be seen as a relational construct focusing on interpersonal or mutual relationships between managers and subordinates. In other words, individuals experience a sense of empowerment when they work together to create mutual connections with one another, and use these connections to facilitate change processes (Jordan, et al., 1991; Fletcher, 1996). Second, empowerment can be seen as a motivational construct emphasizing a joint function of individual s ability and motivation (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995). Managers have to motivate employees to perform to the best of their abilities rather than focusing on delegation of power. In short, individuals can lead to improved performance only when they subjectively perceive that they are empowered. However, these two perspectives incurred some insufficiencies in studying empowerment. Both relational and motivational perspectives analyze empowerment in a way that seems either to overemphasize interpersonal relationship or personal characteristics, but rarely put situational environment in consideration. Indeed, empowerment belief should be influenced by both personal and situational characteristics as empowerment practices must be accepted by the individuals. This line of argument suggests that a person and a situational interaction may be important in understanding perceived empowerment. A third perspective of empowerment can be seen as an interactional construct, and is the main focus in this study. Recent literature tends to adopt an interactional perspective via personality and situational factors to influence human thoughts and behaviors (Mischel, 1968; Bandura, 1977, Brown, 1990). Person and situation are not 4

separable due to the fact that we can never say for sure that one category of constructs would dominate the other. Study argued that there exists some strong situations (e.g. military) in which personality and personal choices mean little (Davis-Blake, & Pfeffer, 1989). But typically normal organizations are not characterized by such strong situations. Furthermore, prior studies argue that people select organizations that best fit their personalities (e.g. Schneider, Goldstein & Smith, 1995). However, in many cases people don t have this much freedom in the real world. Particularly, organizations are prevailing downsizing when economic environment turn into a recession period as good evidences. As a result, a balanced way is to look at both personal and situational characteristics rather than focusing on persons or situations independently. Empowerment schemes are intended to provide employees at every level with a sense of ownership and control over their jobs. This study, therefore, uses the term perceived empowerment to represent the perception that an individual s experience (sense of meaning, competence, self-determination and impact) exists in an organization based on the separate and joint influence of personality and task characteristics. Task Context and Perceived Empowerment Task natures that increase intrinsic task motivation are expected to enhance individual s sense of competence, control, freedom and meaningfulness. Previous research has identified three situational factors that enhance individuals sense of empowerment. Studies introduced such task settings as goal-setting, task feedback and competency-base reward system directly associated with individual perceived competence and efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Wood & Bandura, 1989) as well 5

as designed to increase individual s mastery of power (Spreitzer, 1996; Zimmerman, 1990). Further, Bowen and Lawler (1992) maintain that sense of empowerment is reflected in the provision of information about task, participative decision making and rewards professional knowledge in the workplace. These task situations were found to be related to employees empowerment and sense of control (Yagil & Gal, 2002). To be specific, participation in goal-setting help to build people s beliefs in their capabilities; task feedback comes into play in one s subsequent adjustments of task efforts to achieve desired goals; reward based on individuals ability directly increased their sense of competence. A participative and supportive organization climate that emphasizes the flexibility or autonomy entails the individuals to practice self-direction and self-management in a wide range of situations. Thus, in this study, I argue that empowerment practice represents these three task factors and should be important situational factors. Personal Needs, Interactions and Perceived Empowerment Perceived empowerment is a psychological construct which expected to follow from individuals personality and different needs. McClelland s (1961) need for achievement theory attempts to explain and predict attitude or behavior based on the individuals need for achievement and need for power. Lusier and Achua (2001) categorized high need for achievement as the Big Five dimension of conscientiousness (e.g. achievement-oriented, organized, persistence). Individuals with high achievement need are more willing to work harder and spend extra effort to accomplish goals than people with low achievement need. These people usually perform better and have a high need for empowerment so as to do a better job and accomplish something unusual or important about their career progression. As they 6

are more responsible and reliable (Murrary & Mount, 1996), they are more likely to be empowered and hence, perceived empowered. In a similar vein, Lusier and Achua (2001) categorized need for power as the Big Five dimension of extraversion (e.g. ambitious, sociable, talkative, and active). Individual with high need for power tend to be ambitious and are more concerned about influencing others than individual with low need for power. In a psychological sense, individuals with high power need also have a high need for autonomy to make decision and impact in the workplace that a sense of control (Lahman & Weaver, 1998) or mastery over event is more efficient in coping with environmental requirements. As these people are more likely to be empowered and hence, perceive empowered. Thus, need for achievement and need for power are very likely significant dimensions underlying the Big Five Model due to the fact that these type of personalities an individual may have, he or she would like to tap every possibility to seek empowerment and hence, to feel empowered on job. Since prior research has seldom addressed the personality that moderate the relationships between task characteristics and perceived empowerment, I suggest that task factors are more susceptible to personality needs on perceived empowerment, which is the focus of this study. Prior studies found that individuals with high achievement or power need prefer outcome-oriented cultures and situations in which they attain success or power through their own efforts and abilities (Miner, 1980; O Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991). The above three task characteristics are more likely to result in such situation. First of all, individuals with high need for achievement and high need for power have the tendency to participate in setting performance goal rather than unilaterally assigned by the organization. Individuals with high achievement need prefer to set moderate and accomplishing goal while individuals with high power need prefer participating in setting goal with their 7

superiors (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Locke & Latham, 1990). First, they may perceive the job more meaningful and self-determined if the organizations involved them in setting performance goal and completing tasks from beginning to end (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Second, individuals with high achievement or power need, opportunity to receive task feedback enhances their cognitive assessments of control and impact by providing information about the effectiveness of performance. Lastly, incentive or pay systems that reward individuals capabilities and skills have significant influence on their well-being and thus, enhance their sense of competence and impact. Task feedback and reward systems may serve as an emotional arousal. These task settings help individuals, with high need for achievement and high need for power, perceive that they are respected and supported by the organizations, and hence, facilitate their sense of empowerment. HYPOTHESES Drawing on theory from the interactionist, this study proposes a conceptual model in Figure 1. Two personal and three task characteristics were examined through which to understand their interrelationships on perceived empowerment. -------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here -------------------------------- Individual with a strong need for achievement is believed to be work-oriented and drive themselves to work hard. Studies have found that need for achievement and responsibility are valid predictors of target outcomes (e.g. McHenry et al., 1990; Yasin & Stahl, 1990). The role of need for achievement can be classified as objective and psychological views. From an objective point of view, people with high need for achievement are more likely to achieve their goals because they are willing to work 8

harder. They are likely to solve a problem or perform well, and receive recognition and achievement in the workplace. They generally perform better than those who have low need for achievement. Hence, individuals with high need for achievements are more likely to be empowered and therefore, feel more empowered. From a psychological point of view, individuals with strong need for achievement believe that they are competent and capable to influence their work and work environment. Consistent with this view, study found that individuals with high achievement need are viewed as being positively related to self-confidence in influencing situations (Tedeschi, Schlenker & Linkskold, 1972) and thus, perceive empowered. As a result, they feel more empowered than those who have low need for achievement. These two perspectives can reasonably facilitate the empowerment perceptions. Therefore, I expect that individuals high on need for achievement feel highly empowered than those individuals low on need for achievement. H 1: Need for achievement is positively related to the perceived empowerment dimensions (meaning, competence, self-determination, impact) The second individual characteristic was need for power. Individuals with a strong need for power are believed to be influenced-oriented and drive themselves to control others. Psychological research has shown that need for control is one of the strongest and most deeply ingrained human needs (Alpander, 1991; Bandura, 1977). Similarly, need for power has been classified as objective and psychological views. From an objective point of view, individuals with strong need for power tend to be ambitious and believed that they have impact over the wok outcomes. Individuals with high need for power attempt to have control over their work environment and to seek positions of authority and status more than people low on need for power. They are more likely to win in an organizational competitive activity because they are expected to take an active role in controlling over their work schedule as well as 9

influencing their work situations. Thus, individuals with strong need for powers are more likely to be empowered and hence, feel more empowered. Additionally, from a psychological point of view, individuals with high need for power believe that they are powerful, capable, and able to control their work setting. Individuals with high need for power regarding life in general are more likely to feel capable of shaping their work and work environments. As a result, they feel more empowered than those who have low need for power. Therefore, I expect that individuals high on need for power perceive themselves to be highly empowered. H2: Need for power is positively related to the perceived empowerment dimensions (meaning, competence, self-determination, impact) In addition to the personal needs, a task characteristic influence on the perception of empowerment was participation in goal setting. Studies argue that goals can improve individuals psychological well-being and accomplishments, guide and motivate performance, and build people s beliefs in their capabilities (e.g., Wood & Bandura, 1989). Theorists further found that participation in setting goal enhances individuals personal control and increases level of intrinsic motivation (Locke, Shaw, Saari & Latham, 1981; Mento, Steel & Karren, 1987). In other words, individuals may find the job more meaningful when they are allowed to jointly set goal with their superiors because participation increases one s interest in what one is doing. Given that involvement can foster individuals motivation on task, participation in setting performance goals further enhances individuals feeling of impact and autonomy. The literature review provides some theoretical and empirical evidence that goal setting with participative motive (Locke & Latham, 1990) could be significant predictors of such affective outcome as perceived empowerment. Therefore, I speculate that participation in goal-setting leads to high empowerment perceptions among individuals. 10

H3: Participation in goal-setting is positively related to the perceived empowerment dimensions (meaning, competence, self-determination, impact) The second task characteristic examined in this study was task feedback. Studies suggest that individuals behavior would receive attention and be accepted when they received positive feedback from superior and considered as a source of encouragement and support from organization (King, 1990; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Task feedbacks encourage individuals engagement in the work, increase their intrinsic motivation, serve to motivate and guide purposive action. Studies further found that task feedback should be individual s subsequent adjustments or evaluation based on their preceding effort to achieve desired results and enhance involvement in the goal performance (Wood & Bandura, 1989). If goal setting is focused on job results, then task feedback may be more directed toward work processes. Positive task feedback enhances perception of impact on work process by providing information about the preceding efforts, while negative feedback denotes a signal as what individuals must do differently to achieve better performance. But in the absence or task feedback, sense of competency, impact or meaning judgments are less likely to proceed. Therefore, I speculate that empowerment perceptions would be increased if employees are able to receive feedback relating to their task performance and work results. H4: Receipt of task feedback from supervisor is positively related to the perceived empowerment dimensions (meaning, competence, self-determination, impact) Instead of the reliance on job-based reward system, it has been suggested that competency-based reward system should be more applicable when individuals are allowed to participate in setting their performance goals with their superiors. Competencies are defined as the skills, knowledge and abilities that need to be 11

applied for effective performance (Brown & Armstrong, 1997: 37). Traditionally, reward was based on individual s job performance. Today, reward is not only focused on job itself, but also recognized individual s skill, knowledge and ability that necessary to create organization s competitive advantage and help organization to perform better in the global market. Informed by this concern, Lawler (1994) noted that employees reward system should be linked to their competencies because it is important for the success of the organization, personal performance, and enhanced personal contribution. This may be due to the fact that capable persons take on a proactive intrinsic orientation. Reinforcement theory suggested that reward system link to personal capabilities increases individuals perceptions that they are the important resources of the organization. They think of themselves as competent, have impact on the work outcome and find the job meaningful, so they should be rewarded or reinforced to do so. Therefore, reward systems based on personal capability and skill can facilitate the empowerment perceptions. H5: An organizational reward system that emphasizes individual competence is positively related to the perceived empowerment dimensions (meaning, competence, self-determination, impact) In addition to examining the direct effects among task situational and individual variables, researchers have increasingly embraced interacting effects (Mischel, 1977; Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981). Bowers (1973) argued that the interaction of the person and the situation is both conceptually satisfying and empirically warranted (p. 307). Theoretically, empowerment consists of a set of practices purposefully implemented by an organization. In other words, the organization is trying to create a situation in which such programs as participation in goal setting, opportunity to receipt task feedback and competency-based reward system are introduced. An empowerment program often represents an intervention in existing organizational 12

practices. In this sense, the organization has a situation first. So it is logical to treat task characteristics as antecedents of empowerment. At any rate, it is the organization s purpose to induce sense of empowerment through these task situations. Although employees most likely are not involved in creating the situation, they do have different feelings and attitudes toward the situation. Thus, consistent with the interactional perspective, this study also examined the interacting effect of individual and task variables regarding perceived empowerment. H6: The interaction of the individual characteristics (need for achievement and need for power) and task characteristics (participating in goal-setting, receipt of task feedback and competency-based reward system) are positively related to the perceived empowerment dimensions (meaning, competence, self-determination and impact) METHODS Sample and Procedures Data for this study were obtained from a survey of middle to low level full-time Chinese employees working at private organizations in Hong Kong. Respondents mainly come from six private sectors such as sales and marketing, information technology, business administration, banking and finance, engineering, and accounting. Twenty-six working people were contacted by the researcher in advanced through a short telephone interview and asked for their help to distribute the questionnaires to possible participants. These twenty-six helpers are from different organizations and they are the co-workers of the respondents. When approached by their co-workers, most subjects voluntarily agreed to participate in the survey. Respondents completed and returned the questionnaires to their co-worker. A small gift was given to them for participating in the survey. The data were collected in November, 2002 to January, 2003 yielded a total of 227 questionnaires, but 8 had an unacceptably high number of missing data. Of the 13

219 respondents, 58% was male and 42% was female. With regard to age distribution, 51% was between 20-29, and 40% was between 30-49. In terms of educational background of the sample, 66% had bachelor s degrees or professional qualification, and 26% had completed post secondary levels. Over 70% was low level or nonmanagerial employees. Respondents reported an average workforce experience of 4.2 years in the same company. Measures Respondents used 7-point Likert-type scales (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Neither Agree Nor Disagree, 5 = Somewhat Agree, 6 = Agree and 7 = Strongly Agree) to respond to the items in the following measures. Need for achievement. Respondents answered Parker and Chusmir s (1991) 5-item scale, which referred to individual striving for accomplishment and success. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each of the five statements was most suitable to reflect their opinion. Sample items include I enjoy working hard and I enjoy the satisfaction of completing a difficult task. Coefficient alpha for this 5-item scale was.77. Need for power. Parker and Chusmir s (1991) 5-item scale was again adapted to measure individual striving for power and control over others. Sample items include I enjoy competition and winning and I enjoy influencing other people to get my way. Coefficient alpha for this 5-item scale was.72. Participation in goal setting. Respondents completed Shalley, Oldham and Porac s (1987) 4-item scale of participation in goal-setting. These items pertained to respondents general reactions about the extent to which their superior has been giving the opportunities to participate in setting their performance goals. Sample items are 14

My supervisor is supportive with respect to encouraging me to reach my performance goals and My supervisor decides on my performance goal without listening to my opinion (reverse scoring). Coefficient alpha for the 4-item scale was.75. Task feedback. Respondents completed George and Zhou s (2001) 4-item scale of task feedback receipt from superior in the work environment. Respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the four items about getting any positive or negative feedbacks from their superiors. Positive feedback consisted of three items pertaining to positive feedbacks from one s superior. Sample items of positive feedback include My supervisor often tells me that I do a good job and My supervisor often tells me that my performance is excellent. Negative feedback consisted of one item pertaining to negative feedback from the superior. This item is My supervisor often gives me negative feedback. (reverse scoring). Higher scores indicated more positive feedback and lower scores indicated more negative feedback. Coefficient alpha for this 4-item scale was.75. Competency-based reward system. This study developed a 6-item scale to measure respondents perception of the extent to which organizational reward system is linked to employees capabilities, skills and knowledge. Based on the reward system literature and its definitions, I conceptualize eight statements pertaining to individual s competence of skill and knowledge. Among the eight items, factor analysis revealed two items failed to load on a single factor and were dropped out. Sample items on reward skills are I understand that in my company employees who have better skills receive higher pay increase than those with poor skills and Poor skills are not tolerated in my company. Sample items on knowledge are I know that in my company knowledgeable employee gets promoted first and I have good 15

understanding of how my pay or bonus is linked to individual knowledge and qualification. Coefficient alpha for this 6-item scale was.78 Perceived empowerment. Empowerment perception was assessed with Spreitzer s (1995) 12-item multidimensional scale. Meaning measured the value of a work goal evaluated in relation to an individual s ideals and a sample item is The work I do is very meaningful to me ; competence measured an individual s belief to perform tasks capably and a sample item is I am confident about my ability to do my job. ; self-determination measured an individual s sense of freedom in making choices about his or her task and a sample item is I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job ; impact measured an individual s ability to influence outcomes at work and a sample item is My impact on what happens in my department is large. Coefficient alpha for the four subscales were.83,.85,.88 and.92, respectively. To ensure the validity of the four empowerment dimensions, an exploratory factor analysis was employed, with varimax rotation, of the twelve items. The results confirmed four distinct factors and all items loaded exactly on their respective scales. The four factors corresponded to the theoretical specification in this study and were also consistent with those conceptualized by Spreitzer s (1995). Factor loadings ranged from.74 and.91. RESULTS Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations for all variables in this study. The means for the empowerment dimensions (meaning, competence, self-determination and impact) were 4.86, 5.41, 5.16 and 4.02, respectively, indicating the experience to be fairly prevalent in Hong Kong. As expected, the empowerment dimensions were significantly correlated with the 16

individual and task variables. The two individual variables (need for achievement and need for power) were moderately correlated (r=.32, p<.001) and the three task variables (participation in goal-setting, competence-based reward system and task feedback) were significantly correlated (rs ranged from.43 to.46, p<.001). The empowerment dimensions were moderately correlated with each other with the coefficient of self-determination and impact being the strongest (r =.52, p<.001). Table 2 presents the 12-item measure of perceived empowerment resolved into four separate factors that accounted for 80 percent of the total variance. -------------------------------------- Insert Table 1 and 2 about here -------------------------------------- The results of the multiple regression analysis used to examine the study s hypotheses are reported in Table 3. The individual characteristic of need for achievement was significantly and positively related to the four empowerment dimensions: meaning (β=.17, p <.01), impact (β=.15, p <.05), competence (β =.32, p <.001) and self-determination (β=.23, p <.001). This provides strong evidence for Hypothesis 1. Need for power was significantly and positively related to competence (β=.17, p<.05) and marginally related to meaning (β=.10, p<.10) and impact (β=.11, p<.10) dimensions, but not related to self-determination. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. Additionally, for the three task variables, participation in goal-setting was significantly and positively related to meaning (β=.30, p<.001) and self-determination (β=.18, p <.01), but marginally related to impact (β=.15, p<.10) and competence (β=.12, p<.10). Hypothesis 3 gained full support. Task feedback was significantly related to competence (β=.17, p <.05) and self-determination (β =.14, p <.05) but not for meaning or impact. Hypothesis 4 gained partially support. 17

While competency-based reward system was significantly and positively related to all four empowerment dimensions, meaning (β=.24, p <.001), impact (β=.13, p <.05), self-determination (β=.18, p <.01) and competence (β=.13, p <.05). Hypotheses 5 thus gained empirical support. -------------------------------- Insert Table 3 about here -------------------------------- The results of hierarchical regression analysis used to examine the interacting effect between the individual and task characteristics are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. The independent variables were hierarchically entered into the regression equation: first, the individual characteristics; second, the task characteristics; and third, the interaction terms (i.e., individual needs with task characteristics) were entered. Such a step-wide design was used to test the interacting effect of variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Hypothesis 6 stating that individual needs will interact with the task characteristics on empowerment dimensions. The interaction of need for achievement with participation in goal-setting was significant only for self-determination ( R² =.02, F Value = 4.75, P <.05), but not for meaning, competence or impact dimensions. The interaction term was also significant (β =.14, p <.05) for self-determination. As shown in figure 2, the positive effect of participation in goal-setting on self-determination was slightly stronger for individual with high need for achievement than for low need for achievement. Additionally, the interaction of need for power with participation in goal-setting was significant for self-determination ( R² =.02, F value = 5.21, p <.05) and marginally significant for impact ( R² =.01, F value = 3.34, p <.10), but not for meaning or competence dimensions. Their interaction terms were also significant for self-determination (β =.14, p <.05) and impact (β =.12, p <.10). Figure 3 and 4 reveal that participation in 18

goal-setting was strongly associated with self-determination and impact for individual with high need for power than for low need for power. Since the interaction of individual characteristics with task feedback or competency-based reward systems were not significant for all empowerment dimensions, hypothesis 6 was partially supported. ---------------------------------------- Insert Table 4 and 5 about here --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Insert Figure 2 and 3 about here --------------------------------------- DISCUSSION Although many studies have examined the factors that generate the feeling of empowerment (Koberg, Boss, Senjem & Goodman, 1999; Spreitzer, 1996) as well as the effect of empowerment on individual and organizational performance (Liden, Wayne & Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer, Kizilos & Nason, 1997). Few studies have investigated the person-situation interacting effects that the interactionist debated for a long time (e.g. Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977, 1978; Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981). The objective of this study was to integrate the interactional approach by examining the influence of some individual and task characteristics on perceived empowerment. The finding revealed that both individual and task characteristics were positively related to perceived empowerment. All the hypotheses were either strongly or partially supported. The individual characteristic, particularly need for achievement, compared with need for power, was related to the four empowerment dimensions. Barrick and Mount s (1991) finding revealed that conscientiousness is most related to job-related outcomes as well as most important trait motivation variable in personnel 19

psychology (Mount, Barrick & Strauss, 1994). In other words, need for achievement and need for power, these two constructs very likely significant dimensions underlying the Big Five personality, has a strong linkage to attitudinal and work outcomes. Empirical studies demonstrated that the need for achievement and need for power is association with high managerial motivation. For example, Cumming (1967) stated that a majority of successful managers scored high on need for achievement and high on need for power, their work performance are better. Furthermore, these two personal characteristics were also valid predictors to predict sense of empowerment as shown in this study. The middle or low level non-managerial employees also feel empowered if they have the characteristics of high need for achievement and high need for power. In line with individual characteristics, a situational characteristic like individual competency-based reward system positively and significantly related to the four empowerment dimensions. This finding may be particularly relevant for contemporary organizations in a competitive market that intend to reorganize their pay systems from traditional job-based to competency-based. This reward system may also provide individuals with knowledge of future career paths (Thompson, 1967). Likewise, opportunity to receive task feedback comes into play in one s subsequent adjustments of efforts to achieve desired results or goals, and likely to enhance sense of competence and autonomy. Additionally, participation in goal-setting was significant to meaning and self-determination dimensions. Consistent with theoretical justification that individuals may find their job meaningful and autonomous it they allow to take part in setting goal with their superiors. This study also theorized that the effects of individual characteristics and the nature of work tasks would interact to influence perceived empowerment. Contrary to 20

what was hypothesized, the only interacting relationship this study found was between participation in goal-setting and individual characteristics on self-determination. As mentioned before, individuals with high need for achievement would be more likely to feel empowered than individuals with low achievement need. Similarly, the results also suggested that participation in goal-setting were important for fostering sense of self-determination and impact among individuals who are high need for power. This result was consistent with previous studies that personal needs and goal-setting reinforce each others (Locke et al, 1981; Locke & Latham, 1990). Empowerment initiatives can lead to achieve organizational objectives only when the individual members perceive that they are empowered. Thus, the implication of this finding is that, individual with the characteristics of high need for achievement or power will be more likely to be empowered by allowing them to participate in goal setting. Organizations introduce empowerment practices must need to take these personality variables into account before setting any goals for employees. However, the results of the analyses did not support the personalities interacting with task feedback and competency-based reward system on empowerment that were put forth in the theoretical framework. One of the explanations may be that task feedback should be more focused on high-quality, accurate and specific rather than classified as positive and negative only. Ashford (1989) stated that task feedback provides accurate, timely, and specific information about the cause-and-effect relationship involved in task performance (p.161) that might be more important for individuals who are striving for achievement and power. If these individuals are provided with information about how their efforts deviated from specification, they are more likely to understand task requirements (Lindsley, Bass & Thomas, 1995) and would do better to achieve improved performance. In other words, when individuals 21

receive accurate, timely and specific task feedback, their sense of competence and impact are expected to either increase as a result of improved knowledge about the what to do, or decrease due to the discrepancy between task specifications and the actual result. Thus, individuals high on need for achievement and power may perceive empowered when they receive high-quality feedback that indicates their accomplishments or strong capabilities rather than feedback denoting positive or negative signals. On the other hand, competency-based reward system may not a viable scheme apply to non-managerial employees. Study found that competency-based reward system may be especially attractive for professionals such as technicians and engineers (LeBlanc, 1991). Professionals tend to be interested in increasing their expertise and skill, a competency-based reward system specifically pays these employees for what they have done more than employees generally occupying at middle or low level. In contrast, individual success in a competency-based environment may require considerable flexibility and initiative in which they are oriented toward learning new skills, taking on new responsibility, and assisting in the management of the business. The organizational environment has to support in accordance with little hierarchy, few organizational control system and less superiors supervisory (Lawler, 1992) so that sense of empowerment could be enhanced. If individuals are professionals with the characteristics of high on need for achievement or high on need for power, their feeling of impact and competence may be stronger and find their job more meaningful and autonomous when organization adopt an competency-base reward system. It is clear that future research is needed to replicate these finding and to investigate the influences of task characteristics regarding perceived empowerment. 22

Although the present results are significant theoretically, there are some methodological limitations. First, the cross-sectional design adopted in this study implies that the assumptions of causality are not technically justified. The proposed causal sequence of variables is not sure. One must be sure to note that causal inferences made from cross-sectional designs are never more than inferences (Moorman, 1991). A longitudinal research is necessary to test the underlying relationships examined in this study. Second, the common method variance may be generated. Since data were obtained through self-report measures and possibly prone to be affected by same source bias. Results of factor analysis that checked for method variance revealed that no single factor accounted for a disproportionate amount of variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Moreover, when testing the interacting effect, the independent and interacting variables were mean-centered before constructing their interaction terms. Third, the problem of representative of the sample may be occurred because data obtained were from friends of the researcher. However, the composition of the sample are full-time workers, who themselves employed in business sectors, seemed appropriate. Fourth, the dependent variable of perceived empowerment consisted of attitudes rather than behaviors. Future research is needed to cross-validate the current research to assess whether and to what extent the theoretical framework developed here generalizes across different types of outcomes. Finally, no formalize measure of empowerment programs available in each firm the respondents work for. This requires extensive information research to identify the target sites and future research should take this into account before conducting the survey. In spite of the limitations, this study also has some contributions. First, this study establishes a theoretical and empirically connection between the 23

multidimensional of perceived empowerment and interactional approach. A link rarely recognized in the literature, and one that enriches theory and research in the area of organizational behavior. Further, few studies have examined the relation of person-task interaction on perceived empowerment, particularly based on the separate and joint influence of individual and task characteristics. The findings of this study were consistent with earlier interactional research (e.g. Chatman, 1989; Pervin, 1989) that change in psychological states is expected to follow not only from individuals internal needs but also from the task characteristics that increase sense of empowerment. Second, this paper examines the perceived empowerment dimensions at the middle to low level employees who occupied the base line in the organizational hierarchy. Traditional research on empowerment has been conducted using Western samples of top-level managers (e.g. Spretizer, 1995, 1996). The first line managerial staff and the low level employees are also key sources of assessing perceived empowerment (Yoon, Han & Seo, 1996). Results show that low level employees perceive empowerment in the workplace in addition to top managers. It is important to note that perceived empowerment may act as a facilitator for the lower level employees who wish to attain higher level positions through the development of their capabilities. Third, this study expands the examination of perceived empowerment in a non-western setting, provides consistent findings in the Western society (e.g. U.S.A.). This similarity highlights the generalizability of the perceived empowerment process. Finally, with the increasingly competitive global market, organizations may need to provide not just jobs but also more opportunities for employees to develop their skills and competencies. This point is consistent with Posner s et al., (1986) view that organizational decision-makers should place a strong emphasis on employees development for creating and sustaining organizations competitive advantages. 24

In conclusion, although employee empowerment has been so widely embraced in academia and organization, little research has explored the relation of person-task interaction on perceived empowerment. This study links the interactional approach to the empowerment literature by taking both personal and task characteristics into consideration. It is hope that the present study can provide a more integrative model to the existence literature and will provoke research to fully understand the variables that underpin the perceived empowerment. In order to prevent treating empowerment in a piecemeal approach that may contribute mixed signals to the organization and possibly fails to accomplish the intended outcomes, the separate and interactive effects of both personal and task contextual variables must be examined (Liden & Tewksbury, 1995). Given the conceptual advancements regarding perceived empowerment, this study hope that researchers will continue to examine the interactional factors hypothesized to account for the formation as well as the impact of perceived empowerment in future. 25

REFERENCES Alpander, G.G. 1991. Developing managers ability to empower employees. Journal of Management Development, 10 (3): 13-24. Ashford, S.J. 1989. Self-assessments in organizations: A literature review and integrative model. In L.L. Cummings & M.B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, v.11: 133-174. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 89: 191-215. Bandura, A. 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 248-287. Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1-26. Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182. Bowers, K.S. 1973. Situationism in psychology: An analysis and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 80: 307-336. Bowen, D. & Lawler, E. 1992. The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how, and when? Sloan Management Review, 33: 31-39. Brown, D & Armstrong, M. 1997. Terms of enrichment. People Management. Sept: 36-38. Brown, T.L. 1990. Fearful of empowerment: Should managers be terrified? Industry Week, 239(12): 12 Caplan, R.D. & Harrison, R.V. (1993). Person-environment fit theory: Some history, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4): 253-275. Chatman, J.A. 1989. improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14: 333-349. Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13: 471-482. Davis-Blake, A. & Pfeffer, J. 1989. Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 385-400. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. 26

Fodor, E.M. & Carver, R.A. 2000. Achievement and power motives, performance feedback and creativity. Journal of Research in Personality, 34: 380-396. Fletcher, J.K. (1996). Relational theory in the workplace. Work in Progress (No. 77). Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series. Gange, M., Senecal, C.B. & Koestner, R. 1997. Proximal job characteristics, feelings of empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: A multidimensional model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(14): 1222-1240. George, J.M. & Zhou, J. 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 513-524. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279. Jordan, J.V., Kaplan, A., Miller, J.B., Stiver, I. & Surrey, J. (1991). Women s growth in connection. New York: Guilford. King, N. 1990. Innovation at work: The research literature. In M.A. West & J.L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: 15-59. Chichester, England: Wiley. Koberg, C.S., Boss, R.W., Senjem, J.C. & Goodman, E.A. 1999. Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group Organization Management, 24(1): 71-91. Lahman, M.E. & Weaver, S.L. 1998. The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 763-73. Latham, G.P. & Locke, E.A. 1991. Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 212-247. Lawler, E.E. 1992. The ultimate advantage, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Lawler, E.E. 1994. From job-based to competency-based organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 3-15. LeBlanc, P.V.1991. Skill-based pay case number 2: Northern Telecom. Compensation and Benefits Review, 23(2): 39-56. Liden, R.C. & Tewksbury, T.W. 1995. Empowerment and work teams, in G.R. Ferris, S.D. Rosen, &D.T. Barnum (Eds.) Handbook of Human Resources Management. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Liden, R.C.,Wayne, S.J. & Sparrowe, R. 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): 407-416. 27