MEDIATING ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT AND...

i

MEDIATING ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN THE

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND WORKPLACE OUTCOMES AMONG

ACADEMICS IN MALAYSIAN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

By

SAHAR AHADI

Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia,

in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of philosophy

November 2011

ii

To the meaning of my life

My mom and dad

iii

Abstract of thesis presented to the senate of University Putra Malaysia in fulfillment

of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of philosophy

ABSTRACT

MEDIATING ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN THE

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND WORKPLACE OUTCOMES AMONG

ACADEMICS IN MALAYSIAN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

By

SAHAR AHADI

November 2011

Chairman: Turiman Suandi, PhD

Faculty: Educational studies

The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating effect of psychological

empowerment in the relationship between structural empowerment; organizational

culture and work related outcomes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment)

among academic staffs in research universities in Malaysia. A total of 260 academic

staffs from four research universities (UM; UKM; UPM; and USM) participated in

this study. Questionnaires were used as instruments to gather data on structural

empowerment; organizational culture; psychological empowerment; job satisfaction;

iv

and organizational commitment. SPSS and AMOS softwares were utilized for

analysis the data.

Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients) were

used. The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which verify the proposed

factor structure and test of the construct validity and composite validity, were

reported. In conducting confirmatory factor analysis, some items that report lower

factor loadings were removed, also, some constructs that cannot appropriately

support the construct validity were deleted. Finally, structural model was used to test

research hypothesis.

The results of structural model showed there was a significant partial mediation on

the influence of structural empowerment on organizational commitment through

psychological empowerment. And there was a significant partial mediation on the

influence of structural empowerment on job satisfaction through psychological

empowerment. Also, there was a significant and partial mediation on the influence of

clan culture on organizational commitment through psychological empowerment.

And there was a significant partial mediation on the influence of clan culture on job

satisfaction through psychological empowerment

Therefore, psychological empowerment in the context of higher education

organization specially in research universities consider as an important factor, which

may improve work outcomes’ behaviors of academic staff. If leaders of higher

education can improve the psychological empowerment of academic staff in research

universities, this will help them achieve greater commitment and job satisfaction

among academics.

v

Abstrak tesis yang telah di bentangkan kepada Senat Universiti Putra Malaysia

bagi memenuhi kriteria PhD

ABSTRAK

PERANAN PERANTARA PENGUPAYAAN PSIKOLOGI DALAM

HUBUNGAN ANTARA PENGUPAYAAN STRUKTUR DAN BUDAYA

ORGANISASI , DAN HASIL TEMPAT KERJA DALAM KALANGAN STAF

AKADEMIK DALAM UNIVERSITI PENYELIDIKAN DI MALAYSIA

Oleh

SAHAR AHADI

November 2011

Pengerusi: Turiman Suandi, PhD

Fakulti: Pengajian Pendidikan

Objektif kajian ini adalah untuk mengkaji keberkesanan pengaruh psikologi yang

berperanan sebagai perantara terhadap hubungan dalam pengupayaan struktur,

budaya organisasi, dan hasil kerja dalam organisasi (kepuasan kerja dan komitmen

vi

organisasi) di kalangan staf akademik universiti penyelidikan di Malaysia. Sebanyak

260 staf akademik dari empat universiti penyelidikan (UM, UKM, UPM, dan USM)

telah dipilih sebagai responden dalam kajian ini. Kaedah soal selidik telah

digunakan sebagai instrumen bagi mengumpul data untuk mengkaji keberkesanan

pengaruh psikologi yang berperanan sebagai perantara ke atas pengupayaan struktur

budaya organisasi, kepuasan hasil kerja organisasi, dan komitmen organisasi.

Perisian SPSS dan AMOS telah digunakan dalam penganalisan data.

Statistik deskriptif (mean, standard deviation, dan correlation coefficients) telah

digunakan dalam kajian ini. Analisis Pengesahan Faktor (CFA) digunakan untuk

membuktikan hubungan antara faktor yang mempengaruhi pengupayaan struktur

dan ujian kesahihan soalan serta kesahihan data komposit.

Dalam pengaplikasian Analisis Pengesahan Faktor (CFA), item yang tidak menepati

kesahihan dan item yang tidak dapat membuktikan data telah dipadam. Struktur

Model telah digunakan untuk mengkaji hipotesis kajian ini.

Dapatan kajian menunjukkan Struktur Model yang menjadi pengantara mempunyai

hubungan separa signifikan dengan struktur dalam organisasi serta komitmen dalam

organisasi apabila kaedah pengaruh psikologi digunakan. Keputusan juga

menunjukkan struktur dalam organisasi mempunyai hubungan separa signifikan

dalam mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja apabila kaedah pengaruh psikologi digunakan.

Tambahan pula, data menunjukkan hubungan signifikan dan hubungan separa

signifikan antara budaya berpuak dan komitmen dalam organisasi serta hubungan

separa signifikan antara budaya berpuak dengan kepuasan hasil kerja apabila kaedah

psikologi digunakan.

vii

Oleh sebab itu, pengaruh psikologi yang berperanan sebagai perantara adalah lebih

memihak kepada konteks organisasi pengajian tinggi terutama universiti

penyelidikan dimana ia boleh meningkatkan kepuasan hasil kerja staf akademik.

Sekiranya pemimpin dalam pengajian tinggi boleh meningkatkan kesedaran

psikologi dikalangan staf akademik dalam universiti penyelidikan, ia boleh

membantu meningkatkan tahap komitmen serta meningkatkan tahap kepuasan

pekerjaan dikalangan staf akademik.

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to the chairman of my

supervisory committee, Prof. Dr. Turiman Suandi for his help and guidance in

making the completion of my dissertation a success. Dr. Suandi was there from the

initial phase of the dissertation process, first as a as chairperson by providing

excellent recommendation and feedback.

I am also indebted and very grateful to my committee members during the

preparation of this dissertation. I would like to take this opportunity to express my

deepest appreciation to Prof. Dr. Maimunah Ismail for her careful review, advice and

ongoing suggestions and Dr. Zoharah Omar for being always very energetic and

supportive of my ideas.

Second, I would like to thank Dr. Ismi Arif Ismail the head of Department of

Professional Development and Continuous Education, and my dear friend Siti

Rohani for providing invaluable support and assistance in the process of data

collection. Third, I would like to thank the academic staff who took time out of their

busy schedules to complete the survey questionnaire.

Finally, I like to express my gratitude to my dearest my mom and dad for their

patience and understanding of this long endeavor to complete my doctoral studies.

They made it possible for me to actually do this.

ix

APPROVAL

I certify that an Examination Committee has met on 25 November 2011 to conduct

the final examination of Sahar Ahadi on her Doctor of Philosophy thesis entitled

“Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment in the Relationships Between

Structural Empowerment and Organizational Culture and Workplace Outcomes

Among Academics in Malaysian Research Universities” in accordance with

Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (Higher Degree) Act 1980 and Universiti Pertanian

Malaysia (Higher Degree) Regulations 1981. The Committee recommends that the

candidate be awarded the relevant degree.

Members of Examination Committee are as follows:

Abu Duad b Silong, PhD

Professor

Faculty of Educational Studies

Universiti Putra Malaysia

(Chairman)

Aminah bt Ahmad, PhD

Professor



(Internal Examiner)

Jegak Anak Uli, PhD

Associate Professor



(Internal Examiner)

Gary J. Confessore

Professor Emeritus

George Washington University

United States of America

(External Examiner)

Prof. Dr. Seow Heng Fong

Professor/Deputy Dean

School of Graduate Studies


x

This thesis submitted to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia and has been

accepted as fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

The Members of the Supervisory Committee were as follows:

Turiman Suandi, PhD

Professor



(Chairman)

Maimunah Ismail, PhD

Professor



(Member)

Zoharah Omar, PhD

Senior Lecturer



(Member)

BUJANG KIM HUAT, PhD

Professor and Dean

School of Graduate Studies


Date:

xi

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the thesis is based on my original work except for quotations

and citations which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare it has not been

previously or concurrently submitted for any other degree at Universiti Putra

Malaysia or other institutions.

Sahar Ahadi

Date:

xii

TABLE OF CONTENT

Page

ABSTRACT iii

ABSTRAK v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii

APPROVAL ix

DECLARATION xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xix

CHAPTER

1.1 Background of study 3 1.2 Statement of problem 4 1.3 Objectives 7

1.4 Hypotheses 8 1.5 Significance of study 8

1.6 Definition of terms 12 1.7 Scope and Limitations of study 13

2.1 Introduction 15

2.2 Academic culture 15 2.3 Concept of Empowerment 19

2.4 Empowerment Theories 27 2.4.1 Structural Empowerment Theory 27

2.4.2 Psychological Empowerment Theory 30 2.4.3 Psychological Empowerment in Educational Work Setting 34 2.4.4 Post-modern Empowerment Theories 36

2.4.5 Integrative Perspective on Empowerment 36 2.5 Research Universities 40 2.6 Structural Empowerment and Psychological Empowerment 44

2.7 Organizational Culture and Psychological Empowerment 45 2.8 Psychological Empowerment and Jab Satisfaction 51

2.9 Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Commitment 56 2.10 Structural Empowerment and Job Satisfaction 60 2.11 Mediating role of Psychological Empowerment in Relationship between

Structural Empowerment and Job Satisfaction 62

2.12 Structural Empowerment and Organizational Commitment 63

2.13 Mediating role of Psychological Empowerment in Relationship between

Structural Empowerment and Organizational Commitment 64

2.14 Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction 65 3.15 Mediating role of Psychological Empowerment in Relationship between

Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction 66 2.16 Organizational Culture and Organizational Commitment 67

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 15

xiii


Organizational Culture and Organizational Commitment 67 2.18 Theoretical Framework of Study 69 2.19 Summary 72

3.1 Introduction 75 3.2 Research Design 75 3.3 Research Hypotheses of Study 76

3.4 Measurement and Instrument 77 3.5 Population 82

3.6 Sampling Procedure 84

3.9.2 Construct Validity 86 3.9.3 Convergent Validity 87

3.9.4 Discriminant Validity 87 3.10 Reliability 88

3.10.1 Cronbach Alpha Reliability 88 3.10.2 Composite Reliability 91

3.11 Data Analysis 91

3.12 Structural equation modeling 93

3.13 Measurement model: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 95 3.13.1 CFA of Structural Empowerment 96

3.13.2 CFA of Organizational Culture 99 3.13.3 CFA of Psychological Empowerment 102

3.13.4 CFA of Psychological Empowerment (modified) 102

3.13.5 CFA of Job Satisfaction 106 3.13.6 Partial Disaggregation (Item Parceling) 109

3.13.7 CFA of Organizational Commitment 113

3.14 Summary 119

4.1 Introduction 120

4.2 Descriptive Statistics 120

4.2.1 Distribution of level of structural empowerment 123

4.2.2 Distribution of level of psychological empowerment 123

4.2.3 Distribution of level of job satisfaction 124

4.2.4 Distribution of level of organizational commitment 124

4.2.5 Organizational culture profile 125

4.3 Assumption Check 125

4.4 Total Model: Evaluation of Measurement Model 129 4.4.1 Baseline Model 129

4.4.2 Respecified Model 129 4.4.3 Respecified model fit 129

4.5 Reliability 134

4.5.1 Composite reliability 134

4.6 Validity 134

4.6.1 Convergent validity 134

4.6.2 Discriminant validity 135

4.7 Structural Model 138

3 METHODOLOGY 75

4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 120

xiv

4.7.1 Direct model 138

4.7.2 Respecified model 146

4.7.3 Partial Mediated Model 150

4.7.4 Full Mediated Model 155

4.8 Mediating role of psychological empowerment 158

4.9 Nested model comparison 161

4.10 Bootstrapping 161

4.11 Significance of Standardized Indirect Effect 163

5.1 Introduction 165

5.2 Discussion 165

5.2.1 Measurement Models 165

5.2.2 Structural Models 167

5.3 Implications 175

5.3.1 Theoretical Implications 175

5.3.2 Implications for Practice 178

5.4 Contribution to HRD 179

5.5 Further Research 183

5.6 Conclusion 184

7.1 APPENDIX A1: Demographic Information Sheet 214

7.2 APPENDIX A2: Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire – II 215

7.3 APPENDIX A3: Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument 217

7.4 APPENDIX A4: Faculty Empowerment Scale 220

7.5 APPENDIX A5: Job Satisfaction Survey 222

7.6 APPENDIX A6: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire 224

7.7 APPENDIX B1: Assessment of Normality (Group number1) 226

7.8 APPENDIX B2: (Mahalanobis distance) (Group number1) 228

7.9 APPENDIX C1: First-order CFA of Structural Empowerment 231

7.10 APPENDIX C2: First-order CFA of Organizational Culture 232

7.11 APPENDIX C3: First-order CFA of Psychological Empowerment 233

7.12 APPENDIX C4: First-order CFA of Job Satisfaction 234

7.13 APPENDIX C5: First-order CFA of Organizational Commitment 235

7.14 APPENDIX C6: Measurement Model (base line model) 236

7.15 APPENDIX D1: Correlations: (default model) 237

7.16 APPENDIX D2: Baseline First Model Fit 238

7.17 APPENDIX D3: Correlations (default model) 241

7.18 APPENDIX D4: Respecified Model Fit 242

7.19 APPENDIX D5: Standardized Regression Weights: (default model) 245

7.20 APPENDIX D6 Baseline Model Fit Summary 246

7.21 APPENDIX E1: Regression Weights: (direct model) 249

7.22 APPENDIX E2: Standardized Regression Weights: (direct model) 250

7.23 APPENDIX E3: Modified Model (direct Model) 251

7.24 APPENDIX E4: Standardized Regression Weights: (Direct model) 255

7.25 APPENDIX E5: Regression Weights: (direct model) 256

5 CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 165

6 REFERENCES 189

7 APPENDICES 213

xv

7.26 APPENDIX E6: Assuming model Default model 257

7.27 APPENDIX E7: Regression Weights: (default model) 258

7.28 APPENDIX E8: Standardized Regression Weights: (default model) 259

7.29 APPENDIX F1: Standardized Indirect Effects (default model) 260

7.30 APPENDIX F2: Standardized Indirect Effects 261

BIODATA OF STUDENT 262

xvi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Definitions of employee empowerment in different work settings 25

3.1 Population of academic staff based on gender distribution 83

3.2 Sample size based on gender distribution in four research universities 85

3.3 Cronbach reliability coefficients conditions for work effectiveness 88

3.4 Cronbach reliability coefficients for organizational culture 89

3.5 Cronbach reliability faculty psychological empowerment 90

3.6 Cronbach reliability coefficients for job satisfaction survey 90

3.7 Cronbach reliability organizational commitment questionnaire 91

3.8 Summary of objectives, hypotheses and statistics use 119

4.1 Mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentage 121

4.2 Mean, standard deviation and reliability of measurement variables 122

4.3 Frequency, mean and SD of structural empowerment 123

4.4. Frequency, mean and SD of psychological empowerment 123

4.5 Frequency, mean and SD of job satisfaction 124

4.6 Frequency, mean and SD of organizational commitment 124

4.7 Multicollinearity 127

4.8 Multicollinearity (respecified) 128

4.9 Composite reliability 134

4.10 Convergent validity 135

4.11 Estimation of squared correlation 135

4.12 Discriminant validity 137

4.13 Path coefficient of direct model (base line model) 139

4.14 Path coefficients of direct model (respecified model) 148

xvii

4.15 Standardized indirect effect 154

4.16 Direct, indirect and total effects of latent exogenous variables 157

4.17 Nested model comparisons 161

4.18 Indirect effect of PE in relationship between SE and JS/COM 164

4.18 Indirect effect of PE in relationship between OC and JS/COM 164

xviii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 Psychological empowerment model 33

2.2 Kanter’s work place structural empowerment theory 39

2.3 The competing value framework 49

2.4 Theoretical framework of study 74

3.1 Research hypotheses of study 78

3.2 Second-order CFA of Structural Empowerment 98

3.3 Second-order CFA of Organizational Culture 101

3.4 Second-order CFA of Psychological Empowerment 105

3.5 Second- order CFA of Psychological Empowerment (Aggregation) 108

3.6 Second-order CFA of Job Satisfaction 112

3.7 Second-order CFA of Job Satisfaction (Respecified Model) 113

3.8 Second-order CFA of Organizational Commitment 116

4.1 Organizational culture profile plot 125

4.2 Measurement model (respecified model) 133

4.3 Structural model (base line model) 145

4.4 Structural model (respecified Model) 149

4.5 Structural model (partial mediated model) 151

4.6 Structural model (full mediated model) 156

xix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AHD Human Resource Development

AVE Average Variance Extracted

CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFI Comparative Fit Index

COM Organizational Commitment

GFI Goodness of Fit Index

IFI Incremental Fit Index

OC Organizational Culture

PE Psychological Empowerment

RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

SE Structural Empowerment

SEM Structural Equation Modeling

UiTM Universiti Teknologi MARA

UKM Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

UM Universiti of Malaya

UPM Universiti Putra Malaysia

USM Universiti Sains Malaysia

1

CHAPTER 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Around 70 percent of organizations in this century have intervened empowerment

strategies in their work settings (Lawler, Mohrmen, & Benson, 2001). Workplace

empowerment has been acknowledged as the important and new intervention for

organizational development. Although the idea of empowerment comes from

business and industrial efforts to improve productivity (Short & Johnson, 1994)

empowering academics will also benefit the educational institution, individuals and

colleagues. There is significant support for developing empowerment in

organizations (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer 1995, 1996; Spreitzer, Kizilos

& Nason, 1997; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Casier 2001; Cho, Laschinger &

Wong, 2006; Laschinger, Finegan & Wilk, 2009; Bailey, 2009; Biron & Bamberger,

2010). This support has fostered a greater collaboration between business and

academia.

The concept of empowerment academics in colleges and universities - to improve

their academics’ skills and increase professional growth - has been entered into

higher education context within the last decade. Academics comprise a large

percentage of the educational institution. They are the ones who accomplish the

mission and who endeavor to accomplish the goals of the institution. Academics

work and exist within their universe of norms, standards, expectations (Tierney,

1999, 2008; Mountjoy, 2001; Bartell, 2003; Fralinger, Olson, Pinto-Zipp, &

DiCorcia, 2010).

2

Studies of academic culture reveal that academics are greatly influenced by the kind

of institution in which they work (Clark, 1987; ASHE 2003; Budd, 2005; Umbach,

2007).

Like the other workplaces, universities believe that the key to successful

achievement is to focus on the empowerment of their human resources. It is

anticipated that this research will support the need for academics’ empowerment to

enhance the fulfillment of the university’s mission and to improve its organizational

climate. There are a few researches on empowerment in educational organizations,

especially in universities.

Making a career in academia more attractive requires enough consideration on their

empowerment (Short & Greer, 1997; Contreras-McGavin, 2004; Lambert, 2006;

Strazzeri, 2005; Thorndyke, Gusic, George & Quillen, 2006). Empowerment helps

employers and managers to work independently in their workplace (Bowen & Lawler

1992; Spreitzer, 1996; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, 2001; Schneider, Dowling &

Raghuram, 2007).

Furthermore, it allows leadership within research universities to select and give more

responsibilities to their academics. Therefore, they can arrange and complete their

tasks well instead of carry out them weakly. In an empowered educational

organization, academics are able to participate in decision making, performing

powerful tasks; they develop initiative, work in teams as well as individually; they

are rewarded for participation, have opportunity for risk taking, and have support for

work-life integration. The empowerment of academics is one of the most successful

ways to improve motivation, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Julia+K.+Schneider

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Michael+Dowling

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Sumita+Raghuram

3

(Honold, 1997; Manojlovich & Laschinger 2002; Henkin & Marchiori 2003; Wang

& Lee 2009).

1.1 Background of study

Pressure, change and uncertainty are some of the challenges that higher education

faces these days (Bartell 2003; Machado & Taylor 2010). Increasing changes and

pressures from global markets and government change the roles and work style of its

academics and scholars (McInnis 2000; Altbach 2004; Douglass 2005; Gordon &

Whitchurch 2007; Wood, 2005). These challenges are not only related to structure

and systems but also to the development of academic staff. Universities need

increasingly to compete globally with other knowledge providers for highly qualified

staff with new and different skills in research and teaching activity.

To remain competitive, higher education needs flexible strategies that encourage

innovation and allow the academic staff to accomplish appropriately to their various

responsibilities. Teaching, scholarship, research, consultancy, community service,

and administration are the major tasks of academics in universities in the

globalization era.

Since academics are influenced by the culture of their employing institutions (Clark,

1987; Bartell, 2003; Umbach, 2007; Fralinger, Olson, Pinto-Zipp, & DiCorcia, 2010)

and institutions of higher education tend to favor slow change over time, the inability

of a university to respond to these changing might be dangerous to their continued

existence. Higher education is seeking to increase creativity and productivity from

their academic staff (Altbach 2004; Eckel & King, 2004). An ever increasing body of

literature suggests globalization era higher education needs to empower their

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Paul+Umbach

4

academic staff (Gordon & Whitchurch 2007; Henkin & Marchiori 2003; Lambert

2006). Research universities have not been protected from this movement toward a

more empowered workplace.

The link between increasing empowerment and job satisfaction, organizational

commitment and productivity is well-documented and now assumed within business

and industry (Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004; Logan & Ganster, 2007; Greasley,

Bryman, Dainty, Price & Naismith, 2008; Yang & Choi 2009; Biron & Bamberger,

2010). For nearly fifteen years, the idea of empowerment has been seen often

throughout educational literature (Short & Rinehart, 1992; Short & Johnson, 1994;

Wu & Short, 1996, Perkins, 2006).

Some have found that various dimensions of empowerment are predictors of work

outcomes such as job satisfaction and job commitment in the higher education

context (Manojlovich & Laschinger 2002; Lambert 2006; Gordon & Whitchurch,

2007). Rinehart and Short (1994) assume that enhancing empowerment will increase

job satisfaction and organizational commitment for academic and so increasing

empowerment may be viewed as a means of strengthening job performance for

academic staff in research universities.

1.2 Statement of problem

Today policymakers in Malaysia understand that higher education plays a key role in

the accomplishment of modern society (Newman and Couturier, 2004). It seems that

this responsibility is related more to research universities than the other universities

in Malaysia. Research University goals shift to the creation of new knowledge

(Ministry of Education, 2004, p. 4).

5

Recent change and conflict in the academic environment of research universities

have influenced the way they perform their tasks and may affect academics’ level of

job satisfaction and job commitment and lead to lower organizational commitment

and job satisfaction (Bryson, 2004; Noordin, 2009; Daud, 2010). The studies show

that high satisfaction and commitment level is essential in maintaining in Research

University (Morris et al. 2004; Chong et al., 2010).

Previous studies for development of structural and psychological empowerment

theories (Kanter,1977; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990;

Spreitzer, 1995) as well as research on the relationships of empowerment to various

work place outcomes (Sparrowe, 1994; Spreitzer, Kizilos & Nason, 1997; Seibert,

Silver & Randolph, 2004; Logan & Ganster, 2007; Greasley, Bryman, Dainty, Price

& Naismith 2008; Yang & Choi, 2009; Biron & Bamberger, 2010), show the

importance of both structural and psychological empowerment not only in business

but also in educational settings. Empowerment within higher education in Malaysia

can increase the level of workplace outcomes (Ghani et al. 2009; Choong & Wong,

2011).

According to structural empowerment theory, structural empowerment provides the

possibility to improve staff performance. Meanwhile, psychological empowerment

improves job performance, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

However, the mechanisms and processes by which structural empowerment

influences employee’s positive job outcomes, especially in universities, have not

been adequately addressed in the literature (Zimmerman, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995;

Laschinger et al., 2001; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; Chang, Shih & Lin, 2009).

6

The mediating role of psychological empowerment between structural empowerment

and work related outcomes has been relatively neglected especially in the context of

higher education in southeastern countries. The positive work behavior outcomes of

structural empowerment may be mediated by intrinsically motivating work

experience of psychological empowerment (Liden, Wayne & Sparrow, 2000; Avolio,

Zhu, Koh & Bhatia, 2004; Aryee & Chen, 2006; Chang, Shih & Lin, 2009; Knol &

Linge, 2009).

To have a successful empowerment process, contextual factors are important with in

the organizations (Rappaport, 1984; Siegell & Gardner, 2000; Crawford, 2008;

Tierney, 2008; Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009). Organizational culture is one of the

contextual factors that provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and

assessing empowerment to succeed within universities. Working on empowerment

strategies without any focus on environmental factors such as cultural contexts may

limit the understanding of the construct of empowerment (Zimmerman, 1990; Sigler

& Pearson, 2000; Johnson, 2001; Spreitzer 1995, 2006; Crawford, 2008; Kim, 2008).

While organizational culture and structural empowerment have been frequently

examined as the antecedents of psychological empowerment (Schlesinger & Heskett,

1991; Sparrowe, 1994; Spreitzer, 1996; Hawks, 1999; Liden et al., 2000; Siegall &

Gardner, 2000; Carless, 2004; Wallach & Mueller, 2006; Bailey, 2009; Johnson,

2009), there is lack of study in understanding the mediating effect of psychological

empowerment between organizational culture and job outcomes, especially in

research universities. Meanwhile, the study of organizational culture in the field of

academic empowerment has been ignored.

http://www.nursingoutlook.org/article/S0029-6554(99)90071-4/abstract

7

Psychological empowerment may assist as a mechanism through which structural

empowerment and organizational culture influence work place outcomes.

Apparently, the leaders within the context of higher education must focus on

distinguishing the mechanisms and processes of relationship between contextual

factors and work place outcomes in research universities as there are few studies in

this context on empowerment of academics.

So the purpose of this study is to understand the mediating role of psychological

empowerment between structural empowerment, organizational culture and job

satisfaction as well as organizational commitment.

1.3 Objectives

Main objective

The main objective of this study is to examine the mediating effect of

psychological empowerment in the relationship between structural

empowerment, organizational culture, and work related attitudes (job satisfaction

and organizational commitment).

Specific objectives

Specific objectives of the study are as follow as:

1. To determine the mediating effect of psychological empowerment in the

relationship between structural empowerment and job satisfaction


relationship between structural empowerment and organizational

commitment

8


relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction


relationship between organizational culture and organizational commitment

5. To develop the best fit model for the research

1.4 Hypotheses

1. Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between structural

empowerment and job satisfaction.

2. Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between structural

empowerment and organizational commitment.

3. Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between

organizational culture and job satisfaction.

4. Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between

organizational culture and organizational commitment.

1.5 Significance of study

This study is significant in the field of human resource development in higher

education, both theoretically and practically. There are theoretical justifications for

studying the empowerment of academics in research universities. This study

investigates the mediating role of psychological empowerment in relationships

between structural empowerment, organizational culture, and work place outcomes

(organizational commitment and job satisfaction) and contributes to theoretical

understanding of these constructs in the context of higher education in southeastern

countries.

9

An accurate and valid empowerment model provides human resource development

professionals with worthy and useful instruction that can be applied to the quality

improvement of higher education institutions.

Within the context of a university, human resource development professionals may

want to review and analyze organizational development theories and models related

to empowerment. Since this clearly affects academics’ job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, it helps human resource development frontiers to find

ways which could enhance or improve job satisfaction levels and their commitment

to the university.

An important solution that human resource developers can use for inviting, maintain

and motivating academic staff in research universities is psychological

empowerment. Therefore, the findings of this study may help to enhance the

practitioners’ and managers’ awareness of psychological empowerment as a

powerful and valuable managerial intervention means.

As the concept of empowerment in higher education is new, human resource

developers need to know which perceptions of empowerment receive less attention

from research universities. The findings of this study will provide more knowledge

of empowerment perception and the level of empowerment to HRD practitioners and

leadership. This information can be use further by adding new knowledge to the

concept of empowerment itself and to the concept of academics’ performance and

effectiveness, particularly in research universities and generally in organizations.

Psychological empowerment as a mediating factor has not previously been examined

10

in research universities in Malaysia. The results of this study will provide new and

valuable practical knowledge into the empowerment of academic staff.

A critical role of academics is to promote student empowerment that advances their

performance at the work place and in their real life. Academic staffs who have

control over their teaching and who are active participants in a decision making

process in curricular, instructional and organizational issues usually perceive

themselves as being empowered (Short & Johnson, 1994; Hawks, 1999; Womack &

Loyd, 2004; Perkins, 2006; Gardenhour, 2008).

This study is theoretically significant for advancing both structural and psychological

empowerment theory in higher education settings. Empowerment theory,

contextualized by research universities setting, can be used to develop Spreitzer’s

(1997) theoretical model of psychological empowerment and Kanter’s (1977)

theoretical framework of structural empowerment. Theoretically this study

emphasizes the significance of the mediating role of psychological empowerment for

promoting the relationship between structural empowerment and organizational

culture with work-related outcomes.

The academics of universities, like staff in other organizations, need to handle with

the challenges in the competitive work place. Lee (2004), comments: “[The]

Academic profession [in Malaysia] has had to adapt to the rising student numbers,

financial constraints and changing role of lecturers, which happened in the

universities” (p.137). One of the ways to survive successfully in this challenging

work place is to imply an environment which can help empowerment of academics

and ascertain them for protection from suffering these changes and pressures.

11

Many of these challenges are firmly associated with the empowerment dimensions

(such as autonomy, self-efficacy, access to information and resources, having support

and opportunity, meaning, impact, professional growth, status, and decision making).

Laschinger et al. (2001) claims that challenges in the workplace, which can cause job

dissatisfaction and low commitment to the organization, can be reduced with the

establishment of structural and psychological empowerment at the work place.

As universities are seeking to find various strategies to create an appropriate

environment for empowerment among academics, various factors can be considered

for the successful implementation in the work place, including technology, training,

and organizational culture. Empowerment of academics can be attributed to the

culture of an organization (Spreitzer, 1995; Johnson, 2009). Management theorists

have argued that specific contextual factors such as organizational culture contribute

to the empowerment among employees. Organizational culture is considered an

important component of organizational life affecting both performance and behavior,

whether positive or negative (Thompson & Luthans, 1990; Baily, 2009). Researchers

are uncertain that in the context of educational institutions, academics have a high

level of empowerment.

There are few researches on academics’ empowerment in research universities,

especially in Malaysia, determining academics’ empowerment and the possible

influence of factors on this perception. Added to this would be the need to study the

empowerment concept based on an integrative model in higher education to advance

understanding of empowerment of academics. The purpose of this study is therefore

to determine the mediating role of psychological empowerment in the relationship

between contextual factors and work outcomes in research universities in Malaysia.

12

1.6 Definition of terms

Psychological empowerment is defined as “increased intrinsic task

motivation manifested in asset of cognitions (task assessment) reflecting an

individual’s orientation to his or her work role” (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990,

p.1). Six components of psychological empowerment (decision making,

professional growth, status, self-efficacy, autonomy and impact) are studied

in this research.

Structural empowerment is defined as social structures in the workplace

that determine the behaviors and attitudes of the employees. Employees in

organization are empowered when they clearly distinguish that structure

organization present sufficient opportunity for growth and access to power

needed to accomplish their responsibilities within the organization (Kanter,

1977). Six components of structural empowerment namely, opportunity,

information, support, rewards, formal and informal power are studied in this

research.

Organizational culture is employees’ accepted assumptions, and

expectations and values which influence on the concept and feedback to the

organizational environment. (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997). Four types of

organizational culture (clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy culture) are

studied in this research.

Job satisfaction is “the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the

perception of one’s job fulfillment or allowing the fulfillment of one’s

important job values” (Locke, 1976, p.1342). Nine facets of job satisfaction

containing pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards,

13

operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and communication are

considered in this study.

Organizational commitment is “a psychological state that characterizes the

employee’s relationship with the organization and has implications for the

decision to continue membership in the organization. Organizational

commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, involvement

in and identification with, the organization” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p.67).

Three dimensions, namely affective commitment, normative and continuance

commitment are considered as organizational commitment in this study.

Academic staff refers to Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant

Professors, Instructors and lecturers who work at four research universities

(UM, USM, UKM, UPM) in Malaysia.

Research University in this study of research universities refers to four

universities, namely UM, USM, UKM, and UPM that were accorded the

status of research universities in 2006 from the Ministry of Higher Education

(MOHE) in Malaysia.

1.7 Scope and Limitations of study

This study restricted in its scope to only focus on structural empowerment and

organizational culture that affect workplace outcomes. This study also focuses only

on the concept of psychological empowerment as a mediator between structural

empowerment, organizational culture, and workplace outcomes. As the study design

is co relational, and not all the factors related to empowerment are considered in this

study, so the possibility of other variables affecting the outcome will exist. Other

factors can play a role in increasing organizational commitment and job satisfaction

14

Other limitations exist that may have impact on data interpretation in this study.

These include self-reported responses to questionnaires and a vast number of

questions which may cause low return rate of questionnaires, and lack of application

of the theoretical background on empowerment in the university context. Since this

study is limited to research universities in Malaysia, the result does not necessarily

reflect academics at other types of universities such as public or private universities

in Malaysia.

Modification indices are done in the measurement models in the process of model

modification. While model modification processes are commonly accepted, the

modifications should be supported on theoretical grounds. As it has been argued that

these modifications lead to information loss in the measurement model and

empirically-driven models, it should be noted that a limitation of the present study is

that revised measurement models are only known to fit current data and need to be

re-examined for validity and other fit indices with data from other samples.

Another important limitation is the sample size in this study, which results in low

model fit and in order to have better model fit and reduce the parameters, item

parceling is done. Additional limitation regarding the data used in present study is

that the data were obtained from self-reported and subjective measures to assess

participants’ attitudes. This kind of assessment may lead to increased social

desirability bias and common method variance between predictor variables and

outcome variables.

15

CHAPTER 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter focuses on academic culture, definition of empowerment, theories of

workplace empowerment, empowerment in educational settings, research universities

characteristic, research universities in Malaysia, relationships between structural

empowerment and psychological empowerment, organizational culture and

psychological empowerment, structural empowerment and job satisfaction, structural

empowerment and organizational commitment, theoretical framework of study and

summary of this chapter.

2.2 Academic culture

Faculties in universities, like departments or divisions in other organizations have

their own cultures. The culture of academic staff contributes to performance of

academics and non-academic staff. So, the first issue in a higher education setting is

the academic culture as components of academic culture are useful for understanding

the institution. The culture of an organization shapes the outcome behaviors of

employees (Sparrowe, 1994; Sigler & Pearson, 2000; Tierney, 2008; Trivellas &

Dargenidou, 2009).

Academics at research universities are responsible for their tasks and have their own

culture (Mountjoy, 2001). The literature review shows that academic culture consists

of the concepts and symbols of academic freedom, autonomy, peer-review, merit

principle, change, and professionalism.

16

Academic Freedom

Academic freedom means the freedom of the academic to teach without external

control in his or her area of expertise. After the establishment of research universities

in Germany in the 19th

century, this freedom was given to academic staff in their

teaching and conducting of research. This concept was defined by the American

Association of University Professors (AAUP) at the end of the 19th

century. They

insisted that academic freedom must include not only academic proficiency but all

issues related to their work (Altbach, 2001).

Academics should have academic autonomy from government, students, parents, and

religious sectors in their teaching and research, because accountability and

responsibility of academics to society is very important; academics must be given the

opportunity to perform their tasks without the intervention of any religious or

political parties.

It is very important that in institutional settings, especially in research universities,

academics have the freedom to decide about teaching and research. This freedom is a

kind of decision-making that gives power to academic staff. Administrations must

give more consideration to this concept in research universities. As a result,

academics that have this freedom in their departments may have more power in their

workplace (Womack & Loyd, 2004).

Autonomy

Academics in higher education need high autonomy (Moses, 2007). This autonomy

arises from social contract and in higher education, academics get this autonomy

through academic freedom, peer review, and shared governance. This autonomy also

17

improves job satisfaction and job performance effectiveness and success (Womack &

Loyd, 2004; Phillips, Berg, Rodriguez, & Morgan, 2010). In this way, academics can

gain more autonomy through increasing empowerment.

Peer-Review

Through peer review, academics manage and modify themselves hoping that they

monitor their colleagues’ professional performance (Hamilton, 2007). In higher

education, colleagues make the decision in order to judge the behaviors of their peers

including ethical issues, their competency, promotion, tenure, post-tenure.(Hamilton,

2007).

Merit Principle

In universities and departments that practice meritocracy, academics are doing tasks

and responsibilities and gain position and rewards based on their professional skills

and competency. The equality of opportunity in the higher education and clear

relationship between an academic’s tasks, responsibilities, power, prestige, and

rewards are the key components of an empowered educational setting (Lewis, 1998;

Mountjoy, 2001).

The quality of the research and teaching should be the basis of academics’ judgment.

How well academics perform their professional tasks, which means meritocracy.

And that is what the empowerment focus in the higher education context. This type

of culture is related to the empowered setting in higher education, especially research

universities.

18

Change

Universities, especially research universities, have a dynamic environment.

Academics face a variety of changes inside and outside of their educational work

setting. Changes in the research universities have the potential to influence the roles

of their human resources, and also their perception towards their careers. All

challenges to research universities affect the academic profession in one way or

another. Academics must respond to these changes effectively. Technology will

continue to advance rapidly and funding for research is increasing rapidly and

control of dramatically rising costs will be necessary.

Universities will face competition because of the increasing importance of higher

education for entry into all professions and much of the rest of the knowledge

economy. This is the responsibility of universities, especially research universities, to

respond to these dynamic changes through the cooperation of academics. Higher

education needs more accountability and autonomy for its academics and

administrators to be more empowered to respond to these changes. Academics’

certainty about accountability gives them more power in their situations (Hamilton,

2007).

Professionalism

Faculty culture may also be understood within the framework of professionalization.

Professionalization in higher education shows the way in which academics organize

and conduct their tasks in teaching and research, and how they position themselves

with respect to students and competitors in other universities. Professionalization

needs intellectual and qualified expertise. It also requires training programs,

19

autonomy and working within ethical roles (Bennet, 1998). Academics in a

professional context should participate in decision-making in teaching, research

planning as well as in upper levels of the university (Zuber-Skerritt, 1993).

Academics’ empowerment is synonymous with professionalization. The

empowerment is about autonomy, power and control (Lashley, 1990). In fact, the

academics’ empowerment is the basis of their professionalism. Training of

professionals must be done more easily in order to enhance employees’ relations

(Glasman, 1995).

Generally speaking, academic culture within research universities, which contains

academic freedom and autonomy to teach and research, faces uncertainty and

change. This makes academics feel a sense of dissatisfaction and results in a lack of

commitment, which negatively affects productivity. There is therefore a need to

understand the frustration of academics and a possible solution is grounded on

empowerment of academics (Lambert, 2006; Perkins 2006; Gaziel, 2009).

2.3 Concept of Empowerment

The idea of empowerment as a means of changing destiny was used for the first time

by Bucher (1970) (Bucher cited by Hung, 2005). During 1990s the concept of

empowerment is used in different area of studies such as psychology, management,

business, health, community and education.

Empowerment is a construct that can be used in many areas: economics,

management, education and psychology, community development, and studies of

social movements. The concept and process of empowerment vary among these

perspectives. Rappaport (1984) has posited that defining the concept empowerment

20

is easy it’s not presented in the context. He mentions then that practically it is

difficult to define empowerment in different contexts and with different people.

Zimmerman (1984) has noted that using a general definition for empowerment for all

contexts is not correct. Honold (1997) indicates, "To be successful, each organization

must create and define it [empowerment] for itself” (p.202). So there are different

definitions of the concept and process of empowerment in the literature. The concept

of empowerment first appeared in education during the 1980s (Lambert, 2006). Bsed

on Rappaport (1984) empowerment is a construct that connects personal abilities,

support systems, and eagerness to the change of social policy (Rappaport, 1984).

Keiffer (1984) suggests that empowerment is a developmental mechanism which

includes four stages: entry, advancement, incorporation, and commitment (Keiffer,

1984).

Conger & Kanungo (1988) define empowerment as “a process of enhancing feelings

of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of

conditions that foster powerlessness, and through their removal by both formal

organizational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information”

(p.474). According to Echiejile (1994), empowerment helps employees to have

control on their responsibilities with sufficient assurance in doing their tasks in the

work place (Echiejile, 1994).

Conger & Kanungo (1988), present five stages for the process of empowerment can:

identifying the factors that reduce empowerment within organization is the first

stage. In this stage managers should employ empowerment approaches in the

organization. In the second stage identifying objectives, designing models, capacity,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5C-433P9FR-7&_user=152286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000012478&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=152286&md5=1f5c4f478dc800da160c49c437134a54#bib18

21

feedback and work place improvement considered. In the third stage, employees

obtain empowerment and also deleting the factors that cause powerlessness in the

first stage. The fourth stage makes empowerment through performance and self-

efficacy levels. In the last stage, behavioral effects are seen as efforts to maintain

these effects, in order to achieve the empowerment and cooperative acts to

accomplish the goals of organization (Conger & Kanungo, 1988).

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) define empowerment “as intrinsic task motivation that

manifests itself in four cognitions reflecting an individual's orientation to his or her

work roles. Intrinsic task motivation means “positively valued experiences that an

individual derives directly from a task that produces motivation and satisfaction”

(p.668). The four cognitions they identified are meaningfulness, competence, impact,

and choice.

Dunst (1991) has suggested that empowerment consists of two elements: provide the

experiences that increase self-determination, freedom, making decision, and

responsibility in the work place, and giving opportunity to the employees to show

their abilities as well as learning skills that foster their functioning (Dunst, 1991). In

the strategic performance empowerment model, the necessary elements for

employees’ empowerment in the organization includes: supervisor or colleagues

modeling, mentoring of subordinates, and organizational development (Geroy,

Wright, & Anderson, 1998).

Bowen & Lawler (1992) define empowerment as “sharing with frontline employee’s

four organizational ingredients: information about organization’s performance,

rewards based on the organization’s performance, knowledge that enables employees

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5C-433P9FR-7&_user=152286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000012478&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=152286&md5=1f5c4f478dc800da160c49c437134a54#bib61

22

to understand and contributes to organizational performance, and power to make

decisions that influence organizational direction and performance” (p.32). Short and

Rinehart (1992) identify six dimensions to empowerment: decision making,

professional growth, status, self-efficacy, autonomy, and impact.

Short and Johnson (1994) suggest six dimensions of empowerment in educational

settings that include teacher self-efficacy, impact, opportunities for professional

growth, engagement in the process of making decision, teacher status, and

autonomy. Empowerment, as perceived by Short, Greer and Melvin (1994) is defined

as ‘‘a process whereby school participants develop the competence to take charge of

their own growth and resolve their own problems” (p.38).

According to Spreitzer (1995), empowerment is a bunch of cognitions that

employees have in the work place environment. Contextual factors have an impact

on these cognitive elements. Therefore, based on Spreitzer (1996) empowerment is

the result of a set of socio-structural characteristics in the organization. Spreitzer

(1996) identifies six characteristics that create a context of empowerment in the

workplace, namely: access to resource and information, sociopolitical support, wide

span of control in the time of working, a participative culture, and low role ambiguity

(Spreitzer, 1996). Bowen & Lawler (1995) also mention the importance of four

elements (power, information, knowledge, and rewards) that are necessary for

empowerment.

The perception of empowerment is defined by Chiles and Zorn (1995) as “the

symbolic construction of one’s personal state as characterized by competence, or the

skill and ability to act effectively, and control, or the opportunity and authority to

23

act” (p.2). According to Chiles and Zorn (1995), competence and authority are two

dimensions of empowerment. Employees in the work place feel they are empowered,

when they are able to make decisions and have the autonomy and freedom to

accomplish the decisions.

Besed on Blanchard, Carlos & Randolf (1996) empowerment is the freedom that

employees have to conduct their task while they are responsible for the outcomes of

having this freedom. Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) divide empowerment into two

classifications: “Mechanistic approach that defines empowerment as making

decisions within a set of boundaries, and organic approach which defines

empowerment as risk taking, growth and change” (p.38).

According to Duvall (1999), empowerment is decision made by employees which is

internal and its purpose is to have commitment for achieving the objectives of work

place, and to have freedom to perform the tasks within organizational structure.

These freedom in decision making resulted in the success of both organizational and

individual levels. Duvall (1999) believes that “empowerment is related to freedom to

act and having the opportunity to be responsible for performance outcomes, the

availability of necessary resources, and compensation for expected errors,

commitment and collaboration in the process of the employee’s own success , and

the success of the others” (p.207).

Ugboro & Obeng (2000) identify three dimensions of the empowerment concept:

“participation in the decision-making process, delegation of decision-making

authority, and access to information and other organizational resources” (p. 253).

Based on the study by Sweetland & Hoy (2000), empowerment has two dimensions

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VD8-4C2FC67-1&_user=152286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000012478&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=152286&md5=f61a92172d8f9fb4eab9bfc41185c05e#bib70

24

in educational settings: organizational empowerment and classroom empowerment.

Empowerment in an educational setting is a means of gaining increased control of

the profession, connecting teachers with one another, with their principal, students

and society.

Contreras-McGavin (2004) identifies thirteen dimensions of empowerment in

educational settings. These dimensions are: self-efficacy, training new teachers,

transformation, accountability, collegiality/collaboration, change, curriculum

planning/design, self-esteem, decision-making, impact/causal importance,

authority/leadership, professional growth, professional knowledge, responsibility,

and status (Contreras-McGavin, 2004).

According to Alsop, Heinsohn & Somma (2004), empowerment is related to agency

and opportunity structure. Agency refers to an individual’s capacity to make decision

from different alternatives. These choices provide individuals to have different

opportunities socially, economically and politically. Opportunity structure is

contextual factors that an individual can absolutely transfer determinations into

productive activity.

In order to understand the importance of empowerment in organizations, it is

important to be aware of empowerment definitions and how these definitions fit into

the context of each organization (Martin-Crawford, 1999). It is important that each

organization has its own definition of empowerment. Researchers in different field

of studies have created particular definition of empowerment (Table 2.1).

25

Table 2.1. Definitions of employee empowerment in different work settings

Author(s) Definition of empowerment Setting

Tannenbaum (1968) Power is derived from structural

organizational factors such as work

environment, opportunity for growth,

support and rewards

Business

Kanter (1977) Giving power to people who are at a

disadvantaged spot in the organization.

Sharing of power and control increases

organizational effectiveness

Healthcare

Rappaport (1984) Structural and organizational process that

facilitate participative and collective

interaction with in an environment to

enhance goal achievement

Business

Kieffer (1984) the continuing construction of a multi-

dimensional participatory competence

Business

Thomas & Velthouse

(1985; 1990)

Cognitive variables. The key cognitive

variables are the environment, the tasks,

and the behavior of the leader, the

individual’s interpretive styles, and the

impact and meaningfulness of the task.

Empowerment as instinct task motivation

Business

Lightfoot (1986) the opportunity for person to have

autonomy choice, responsibility and

authority

Business

Vogt & Murrell (1990) “Interactive empowerment”, act of

building, developing and increasing power

by working with others. “Self-

empowerment”, having the ability to

influence one’s own behavior.

Business

Short & Rinehart

(1992)

Decision making professional growth,

status, self-efficacy, autonomy, impact

Business

Jenks (1992) collective autonomy and involvement in

leadership process

Education

Short (1994) as a process whereby school participants

develop the competence to take charge of

their own growth and resolve their own

problems

Education

26


Menon (1995) “a cognitive state [of] perceived control,

perceived competence and goal

internalization”

Business

Rothstein (1995) act of building, developing, and increasing

power through cooperating, sharing, and

working together

Education

Zimmerman (1995) Empowerment does not have universe

meaning. It may have different meaning

for each person, community or

organization

Business

Gorden (1995) managing organizations by collaboration

where workers have a voice

Business;

Communit

y

Spreitzer(1996) role ambiguity, access to strategic

information, access to resources, work unit

culture

Business

Blanchard, Carlos &

Randolf (1996)

Having the freedom to act but also the

responsibility for results. Freedom can be

achieved by leadership sharing information

with everyone, creating autonomy through

delineating boundaries, and replacing

hierarchies with self-managed teams.

Business

Short and Greer (1997) shared decision making in context of

education erroneously transfer power from

management to labor

Business

Sweetland & Hoy

(2000)

A means for connecting teachers with each

other’s, their principal, students and

society

Education

Laschinger,et al. (2001) psychological empowerment was the

outcome of structural empowerment and

had an intervening effect on structural

work conditions and organizational

outcomes

Education

Hanley & Abell (2002) Process of relatedness, which refers to an

expression of an individual’s worldview

beyond one’s own sense of self,

connection, and commitment to another

person, persons, or entity.

Healthcare

Mills & Ungson (2003) the delegation of decision making

prerogatives to employees, along with the

discretion to act on one’s own

Business

Abdulahi (2004) .managerial strategies such as access to

information, cooperative management,

freedom, team building and authority

organizational environment such as reward

system, organizational structure and access

Business



27

to resources

28


Seibert, silver, &

Randolph (2004)

Individuals subjective should be valued.

pertaining to organizations’ structures,

policies, and practices

Business

Luby (2006) An active orientation toward obstacles or

challenges through which one operates

from an internal sense of control and

competence, energized by personal

alignment with larger organizational goals

that are meaningful.

Business

Greasley, Bryman,

Dainty, Price, Naismith,

& Soetanto,(2008)

personal responsibility” and “control over

their work

Business

Bailey (2009) Integration of structural and organizational

factors as “macro” and psychological

factors as “micro” level of empowerment

Business

2.4 Empowerment Theories

The origins of empowerment theory are not clear. Empowerment theory established

from the reforms for the human rights of women and minority groups in 1960s

(Anderson, 2007). The philosophical foundations of empowerment theory are

beginning with the most deep and serious questions of politics and organizational

life: justice and fairness, the roots of power, and the role of the member of an

organization or society (Anderson, 2007, p. 29).

Review of literature revealed three fundamental theories of empowerment: structural

empowerment, psychological empowerment and post-modern empowerment

(Anderson, 2007).

2.4.1 Structural Empowerment Theory

The fundamental assumption of structural empowerment comes from social-

exchange theory. Structural empowerment investigates the power which an employee

at the work place has. Structural empowerment theory is commonly only related to

29

the structure of organization (Prasad, 2001). The focus of structural empowerment

theory is on responsibilities, control and power, and strategies related to system of

organization. Power is divided within the members of organization and each member

can assign this power in the organization. Self-governing regulations are fundamental

in empowerment theory (Prasad, 2001).

Kanter (1977) discussed that an individual respond wisely to the different conditions

he/she faces. In the more structured situation staff feels more empowered.

Empowered employees react in an appropriate way and face to the challenges in their

work places. Therefore, employee attitudes toward his/her work place will improve

and productivity of organization. Generally speaking, the theory of structural

empowerment concentrates more on the formal and informal power and control and

structure of organization.

Kanter (1977) found that empowered workplace represent two components which

can enable staff to accomplish their tasks and responsibilities. Opportunity as a first

component refers to opportunity to increase the level of qualifications and

knowledge, flexibility and development. The second one, structure of power, refers

to the opportunity to access support, resources and information in order to

successfully accomplish the tasks in the organization (Kanter, 1977). Support relates

to the feedback employee got form the colleagues and top management in order to

increase efficacy and productivity with in the work environment. Resources refer

the extent of money, equipment, materials other employees’ requirements for

effectiveness and achievement within the organization. Access to information refers

to knowledge, data and professional skills that employee needs in order to do the

job appropriately (Kanter, 1977).

30

Construction and design of Kanter's (1977) structural empowerment theory is focus

on clarifying the workplace outcomes behaviors such as job satisfaction, job stress,

organizational commitment, job turnover and absenteeism. Kanter (1977) argued that

organizational structure in the work environment is a key that related to the positive

work place behaviors of employees. Meanwhile, access to opportunity structure and

formal/informal power correlate the attitudes of employees in their work place.

Kanter (1977) noted that employees show various behaviors in their work place in

the existence or absent of organizational structure components in the organization. In

summary, the emphasis of structural empowerment theory is on developing more

qualified work place.

Based on structural empowerment theory, formal and informal power in work place

assists the progress of structural empowerment in the organization. Formal power is

related to tasks which are appropriate and principal in the work place and have

clarity, originality and flexibility. Informal power refers to the relationships between

colleagues, mangers and subordinates outside and inside of work place. In an

empowered organization, individuals experience positive feelings about their work.

Employees with appropriate amount of power can do their responsibilities

completely and they also achieve the ability of empowering others in the

organization.

On the other hand, employees that have less opportunity to gain resources,

information and support become less empowered in comparison of their peers in the

work place. The less empowered employees feel that they have less power and

autonomy on their tasks and mostly dependent to the empowered employees. The

31

powerlessness makes employees restricted to rules and regulation, with less

attachment to the organization and inflexible (Kanter, 1977).

However, structural empowerment theory has some limitation with in its approach.

Structural empowerment theory focuses only on the organized system and not the

individual attitudes and experience towards empowerment. Empowerment as

experienced by employees. Even when the organizational structure (power and

opportunity) exists in the organization, employees may feel powerlessness.

Therefore, other approaches of empowerment contribute to the structural

empowerment in the work place.

2.4.2 Psychological Empowerment Theory

Psychological empowerment refers to personal, behavioral and interactional

approach of empowerment. Psychological empowerment theory is a need of

globalization era. In this era, creative and empowered employees are required.

Psychological empowerment as a second perspective of empowerment relates to the

conditions psychologically important for the employees in order to have control over

their tasks. Psychological empowerment basically refers to the individual’s

perception about interaction between peers within the organization (Chiles & Zorn,

1995).

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) developed a cognitive model based on four cognitions

these four cognitions considering employees’ perception and feeling about their work

roles. They believe that the four cognitions of psychological empowerment is the

result of employee’s work place and his/her personal characteristics that influence on

the attitudes and behaviors of employees. Spreitzer (1995) builds upon the Thomas

32

and Velthouse (1990) model and validates a measure of empowerment. Thomas &

Velthouse (1990) and Spreitzer (1995) see empowerment as consisting of four

psychological states (meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact). All four

cognitions are necessary for empowerment to succeed.

Spreitzer (1995) found that these four cognitions associated with the individual

empowerment. As a result this approach of empowerment contributed to productivity

and efficacy within the organization. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) believe that

empowerment is multidimensional and it is increased intrinsic task motivation

consists of four cognitive components considering employees’ perception and

feeling about their work roles: meaning, competence, which is synonymous with

Conger’s and Kanungo’s self-efficacy, self-determination, and impact.

Thomas & Velthouse (1990) and Spreitzer (1992) suggest that psychological

empowerment is the result of four cognitions which are related. Spreitzer (1992) and

Thomas & Tymon (1994) test this multifaceted idea of psychological empowerment

and found support for the four-dimensional construct of psychological

empowerment.

According to Thomas and Velthouse (1990), impact is “the degree to which behavior

is seen as making a difference in terms of achieving the purpose of the task and

influencing strategic, administrative or operating outcomes at work competence”

(Thomas and Velthouse, 1990, p. 672). Self-efficacy refers to “the ability of a person

to perform a task skillfully while meaning is the value of a work goal or purpose,

judged in relation to an individual’s own ideals or standards” (Thomas and

Velthouse, 1990, p. 673). Meaningfulness refers to how much an employee

33

committed to his/her responsibilities in the work place and self-determination or

choice refers to causal responsibility for a person's actions, it refers to autonomy at

the beginning and during doing the tasks and it is a motivational construct for the

work place behaviors.

Spreitzer Empowerment Model

Spreitzer’s (1997) model of individual empowerment describes psychological

empowerment as a mediator between the socio-structural factors within the

organization and positive work place behaviors. Specific characteristics of

organizational structure include organic structure, access to strategic information,

access to organizational resources, and organizational culture.

As illustrated in Figure 2.1., these social structural antecedents (organic structure,

access to strategic information, access to organizational resources, and organizational

culture) are mediated by a psychological sense of empowerment (meaning,

competence, self-determination, and impact) to produce behavioral outcomes

(innovation, upward influence, effectiveness).

34

Social Structural

Antecedence

Organic structure

Access to strategic

Information

Access to organizational

resources

Organizational culture

Psychological Sense of

Empowerment

Meaning

Competence

Self-determination

Impact

Behavioral

Outcome

Innovation

Upward Influence

Effectiveness

Figure 2.1. Psychological Empowerment Model in Organizations

(Source: Spreitzer, G. M., 1997, p.31)

35

2.4.3 Psychological Empowerment in Educational Work Setting

Based on empowerment definitions in the literature, which are mostly defined in the

context of business and education, empowerment is a means that every employee

must have. This process depends on the context; people and culture of staff in

organizations have different dimensions and elements. Therefore, empowerment has

its own definition in the context of research universities, although the main

dimensions can be used in other educational settings. As first attempt, Short &

Rinehart (1992) focus on identifying the components of participants’ empowerment

in educational institutions by the purpose of developing an instrument which is

appropriate to participant empowerment in educational institutions.

They found six components for psychological empowerment in an educational

setting. Psychological empowerment consists of four cognitions, namely, impact,

competence, decision making and meaning. However, as the context of the

educational workplace differs from that of business, Short and Reinhart (1992)

introduce psychological empowerment in educational settings. They explain that

psychological empowerment in educational work setting is dependent on six

dimensions. The dimensions are autonomy, professional growth, status, self-efficacy,

and impact, decision making (Gardenhour 2008; Wan, 2005; Short & Johnson,

1992).

Decision Making

The decision-making process in an educational context refers to problem solving,

having cooperation in the communication, and identifying objectives (Boland-Prom

& Anderson, 2005). Through participating in critical decision making, academics

36

have the opportunity to have enough control over their work environment (Short &

Johnson, 1994).

Professional Growth

Professional growth refers to the degree of opportunities that university and

departments provide to academics to grow and develop professionally, to learn

continuously and develop certain professional skills for teaching and research

(Boland-Prom & Anderson, 2005).

Status

Academic staff status is often determined by academics’ innovation, creativity and

efficacy in the classroom and research. Academics have a natural desire to be valued

for the task they do by their administrator, head of department and their students

(Schneider, 2000).

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to the knowledge and belief of academics’ competency by them-

selves. Self-efficacy related to the professional skills which are necessary for

achieving the goals of educational settings (Short & Johnson, 1994).

Autonomy

Autonomy refers to academics’ beliefs that they can control certain aspects of their

work life. This may be control over scheduling, curriculum, research and materials

(Short & Johnson, 1994).

37

Impact

Impact refers to when academics feel they have an effect and influence on their work

place (Short & Johnson, 1994).

2.4.4 Post-modern Empowerment Theories

After two approaches of empowerment, more recent one is the post-modern of

empowerment theories. Experts of this approach argue that there is a need for fixing

the concept of structural power in the work place through which employees can gain

more power within the organization. They explain that there is a need to understand

how power put in to the work place and how employees used this power within the

organization. Knowledge on the concept of empowerment in the work place is not

sufficient action and more emphasis should be done on accomplishment of

empowerment. Post-modern theorists believe that empowerment is a mechanism and

process that employees obtain power within this process. Generally speaking, power

in this approach seen as a process rather than construct of force that is entered in the

organization (Anderson, 2007).

2.4.5 Integrative Perspective on Empowerment

The goal of empowerment theory is to identify and explain interaction between

contextual factors and individual’s feelings, and attitudes, and cognitions

(Zimmerman, 1990), and ultimately predict how these elements influence employee

behaviors on the job. In order to have successful empowerment it must be multi-

dimensional rather than one-dimensional approaches which are not sufficient based

on recent studies (Honold, 1997).

38

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) try to explain empowerment which makes a

distinction between situational characteristics and job essential perception. Conger

and Kanungo (1988) claim that situational characteristics help give power to

employees but are not the only choice. Psychological empowerment is another

approach that can help in individual empowerment of employees. Therefore,

empowerment is not only at the organizational structure level but also at the

individual level (Zimmerman, 1995).

Few researchers integrate two set of structural and psychological empowerment

dimensions. Spreitzer (1996), Laschinger et al. (2001), Seibert et al. (2004), and

Bailey (2009) have arguments about the relationship of structural and psychological

empowerment. The result of their studies reveals that there is significant relationship

between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment. The integration

of empowerment may provide more clarity to higher education’s total empowerment

picture. Therefore, this study embraces and builds on the research regarding the

integration of structural and psychological empowerment.

Laschinger Empowerment Model

Laschinger’s empowerment model was originally developed based on Kanter’s

structural empowerment theory, which focuses on the relationship between structural

empowerment in the work environment and employee’s work place attitudes and

behaviors. In order to investigate and understand more about the employees’

behaviors, Laschinger enters psychological empowerment to expand the

empowerment model (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian & Wilk, 2001). Therefore,

39

Laschinger’s work empowerment model is a comprehensive model that can integrate

two empowerment approaches (structural and psychological).

This model describes all dimensions of the empowerment process and employee

behavior outcomes. This model shows the integrative and comprehensive definition

and process of work empowerment and makes the study more accurate and valid by

incorporating two approaches of empowerment in organization. As focusing on one

aspect of empowerment is incomplete and questionable, this model links the

organizational context, components of structural and psychological empowerment,

mediating psychological empowerment and work behavioral outcomes.

Laschinger et al. (2001) explain more about the relationships between constructs in

Kanter’s theory. Structural empowerment does not describe the respond of employee

to work conditions. These reactions refer to the concept of psychological

empowerment. Spreitzer (1996) found that access to strategic information in the

work place and rewards are contextual factors that were significantly associated with

psychological empowerment. This is expected from the result of previous studies that

psychological empowerment is a consequence of structural empowerment

(Laschinger et al., 2001; 2006; Ghani et al., 2009). In addition, psychological

empowerment is related to organizational commitment and job satisfaction

(Hechanova, Alampay & Franco, 2006; Laschinger, Purdy & Almost, 2007; Wang &

Lee, 2009; Casey, Saunders & O’Hara, 2010). These studies suggest that

psychological empowerment may be an intervening variable between structural

empowerment and employee effectiveness (Liden, Wayne & Sparrowe, 2000;

Bailey, 2009; Johnson, 2009; Chang, Shih & Lin, 2010).

40

-Formal power

-Informal power

-Opportunity

structures

-Power structures

-Proportions structure

Increased satisfaction

Increased commitment

Increased autonomy

Increased self-efficacy

-Achievement &

successes

-Respect and

Systemic power

factors

Access to job related

empowerment

structures

Personal impact on

employees

Work effectiveness

Figure 2.2. Kanter Work place Structural Empowerment Theory

(Source: Adapted from Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. 2001, p. 4)

41

2.5 Research Universities

The concept of a world-class university indicates the key values and norms of the

world’s research universities. The idea of research universities came from western

countries at the end of the nineteen century. The pioneer was a German research

university that takes a risk of changing the academic thinking at that time (Altbach,

2004). World-class universities are beneficial as they improve the quality of

academics, have important role in the society development, and create new

knowledge through emphasizing on research (Altbach, 2004).

For the accomplishment of these goals world-class research universities need world-

class and research-oriented academic staff. Recruiting and keeping the best qualified

academics that may help a university remain on top. To achieve this, it is the

responsibility of university leadership to apply techniques and strategies that increase

the professional development and performance of their professional human resources

within the context of research universities.

Importance of Research Universities

The important mission of research universities is creating new knowledge that is the

fundamental need for productivity and innovation in the society, culture and

economy. Therefore, academics to combine research with teaching, qualified

professional with great capacity to produce new knowledge, and provide creativity

within the context of research universities are requested. Without academic staff with

these potential and capacity, internationally competitive research universities will not

develop (Report of league of European research universities, 2002).

42

Malaysian universities in globalization era are expected to be more research based in

order to provide new knowledge to be used in economy and development and quality

of life, be more competitive, creative, and innovative, perform qualified, as well as

generate income for the universities, and high impact research publications and

attract qualified and talented graduate students (Komoo, Azman & Frina, 2008).

Productivity of Academics

Organizational productivity is important for survival in today’s competitive higher

education environment. Six main factors have been identified that associated with

research productivity. These are work load of the academic staff, the research culture

of the institution, research opportunities such as funding and resource availability,

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as academic’s knowledge of research

(Kusure, Mutanda, Mawere & Dhliwayo, 2006). All these factors will be helpful in

the productivity of research universities by the contribution of empowered academics

in an empowerment context.

Professional Development

A research university is an educational organization that has major responsibilities.

Teaching, doing research and having administration tasks are just some of these

responsibilities. Academics may have different responsibilities in their work place

such as: head of committees, head of departments, deans, directors or vice

chancellors.

The most important resources for responding to these responsibilities are academics.

Therefore, the professional productivity and development of a research university

43

depends on highly qualified academics with great performance. Academic

professional development will take place when the academics are empowered in any

combination of the three major work areas already discussed, depending on their job

description. Organizational development theories and concept have strong link to the

theory and practice of empowerment (Osborne, 2002; Brancato, 2003).

Academic Staffs in Research Universities

Academics are the main resources in research universities for two reasons: one,

academics are professional human resources in research universities and they are

responsible for the key functions of teaching and research. Academic staffs are

clearly affected by the changes and pressures in the context of higher education.

Therefore, all challenges to research universities affect the academic profession

(Teichler, 2007). In Malaysia, due to the emphasis on accountability of research

universities, there is a need to enhance innovation and productivity, accept the rules

related to research universities goals, participate and agree with professional

assessments and understand and accept the limitations of infrastructure within the

context, facilities, resources or time (Lee, 2003).

Research Universities in Malaysia

One of the major goals of the National Education Development Plan 2001-2010 is to

produce a world-class education system. The development strategies involve

empowerment at university level, improving the teaching profession, increasing

effectiveness in the system of education as well as staff development. In Malaysia,

education plays an important role in enhancing the national economy, and promoting

health and community issues, reducing criminal problems within society, and welfare

44

dependency. According to Lee (2004) the origin and development of higher

education in Malaysia can be seen in terms of “three distinctive waves of expansion”

(p.41).

In the first wave, the first independent university in Malaya at the time of British rule

was established. The second wave took place in the 70s and 80s, after the new

economic policy and resulted in the establishment of more public universities in

order to increase the educational equality among different ethnic groups. Finally, in

the third wave, in the 90s, Malaysia faced with the growth in establishment of private

universities and colleges to meet the increasing demand for higher education arising

from the c modification of education and commercialization. According to Lee

(2004), this witnessed the establishment of new public universities, university

colleges, private universities, and branch campuses of foreign universities. As of

2007, there are 20 public universities, 28 private universities and university colleges

and 486 private colleges.

Malaysia has decided to upgrade the existing institutions to become world-class

research universities, by using the three most effective approaches: creating new

world-class universities from scratch (clean-slate approach), and merging and

transforming into a new university (hybrid formula) (Salmi, 2009).

The Government has designated four public universities as research universities.

Consequently, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Universiti Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia and Universiti Putra Malaysia have been chosen to lead Malaysia’s

creativity and innovation through creating new knowledge. Therefore, these

universities need the development of academics, as the research universities

45

rearrange to significant organizational changes. For this reason, the elements of

empowerment, meritocracy and academic freedom will need to be considered

(Abdullah, 2009).

2.6 Relationship between Structural Empowerment and Psychological

Empowerment

Perceptions of psychological empowerment can be related to external and contextual

factors that surround employees in their work place. Social structural changes in

organizations can influence individuals' empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996; Zimmerman,

1990). The review of literature supports the belief that structural and organizational

empowerment influences the psychological empowerment of employees in different

work settings. A study by Dee, Henkin & Duemer (2003) shows the associations

between school organizational structures and teacher empowerment, while

psychological perspectives on empowerment suggest potential relationships between

the phenomenon and cognitive and affective outcomes.

The contextual factors are found to be associated with the elements of psychological

empowerment in industry and business settings (Spreitzer, 1996; Siegall & Gardner,

2000; Robbins, Crino & Fredendall, 2002). Communication with supervisor and

general relations with company are significantly related to the dimension of

empowerment such as impact, status, self-determination, and impact, but not related

to the competence.

A study by Ghani et al. (2009) in higher education settings in Malaysia suggests five

factors as antecedents of psychological empowerment in universities in Malaysia.

Access to information, resources, organizational support and opportunity to learn,

46

and trust are identified as structural empowerment and antecedents of psychological

empowerment.

It has also been found that structural empowerment is a significant predictor of

psychological empowerment in business and educational settings (Zimmerman,

1990; Spreitzer, 1996; Siegall & Gardner, 2000; Robbins, Crino & Fredendall, 2002;

Dee, Henkin & Duemer, 2003; Perkins, 2006; Ghani et al., 2009). Based on this

rationale, the following hypothesis proposed for this study: There is a positive

relationship between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment

among academics in research universities.

2.7 Relationship between Organizational Culture and Psychological

Empowerment

Empowerment in the work place cannot be without environmental contexts because

producing empowerment is by changing organizational cultures and environments.

Institutional environments can be facilitator or inhibit empowerment (Contreras-

McGavin, 2004; Chiang & Jang, 2008). Kanter (1977) suggests that the structure of

the work environment is a more important determinant of employee attitudes and

behaviors within organizations.

Organizational culture is one of the contextual factors that can lead to increasing or

decreasing level of psychological empowerment. For understanding and evaluating

the person-environment fit, organization culture gives a comprehensive model in

order to achieve successful empowerment in the work place. Organizational culture

in the organization explains employees’ behaviors and attitudes as well as specific

strategies which are related to the components of work life (Martin, 1992).

47

The importance of organizational culture as a contextual factor in understanding the

individual perceptions of empowerment is completely clear. Researchers in different

work settings have efforts to examine the relationship between organizational culture

and psychological empowerment. Spreitzer (1996) and Sparrowe (1994) studies

show that a participative organizational culture is positively contributed to

perceptions of empowerment.

Thompson & Luthans (1990) noted that organizational culture shapes organizations

and provides a better understanding of employee empowerment (Thompson &

Luthans, 1990 cited by Bailey, 2009). Therefore, organizational culture may be

related to academic and non-academic employee reactions to empowerment in higher

education context.

Psychological empowerment in a work place is more likely to succeed when the

organizational culture contains (Spreitzer, 1995; Kraimer, Seibert, & Liden 1999;

Johnson, 2009). Organizational culture has various definitions. Schein (2004) defines

organizational culture as “a pattern of assumptions judged as a valid way to perceive,

think, and feel as the organization deals with change and problems” (p. 17).

Organizational culture is viewed as one of the dominant features that shapes the

norms and values of organizations’ environment, as well as an important factor for

productivity and effectiveness of work place. Organizations that aim and desire to

ask their employees in participating of decision making process in order to enhance

the quality and effectiveness of their organizations, are beginning to enter the

concept of empowering culture in their work place (Sigler & Pearson, 2000).

48

There are numerous types of organizational culture. Harrison (1972) defines four

cultural types: power, role, people, and tasks (Harrison, 1972 cited by Salumaa,

2007). The competing values by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), describe three ways

that a work place can distinguish its norms and values. These three elements are the

structure of organization or organization attribution through these values,

adaptability or factors both internally and externally assist to the objectives of

organization, and the process of the focus on the objectives or the character that the

tasks is accomplish regardless of the outcomes.

Wallach (1983) suggests three primary organizational cultures: (a) supportive, which

is warm and humanistic; (b) innovative, which is exciting and dynamic; and (c)

bureaucratic, which is classified and hierarchical. Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohavy &

Sanders (1990) define six factors to describe organizational cultural differences: (a)

process versus results-oriented, (b) employee versus job-oriented, (c) parochial

versus professional, (d) open versus closed systems, (e) loose versus tight controls,

and (f) normative versus pragmatic. According to Schein (1996) three management

cultures within organizations are essential for promoting the effectiveness of work

place: (1) executive culture for work place financial health and (2) engineer culture

refers to the technology and the knowledge of using the technology (3) operators

culture is related to is trust, teamwork, participation, communication and personal

interaction, and communication, trust, and teamwork.

Cameron (1998) defines five dimensions of culture: (a) clan, which includes a

concern and sensitivity to consumers; (b) hierarchy; (c) market-supported stability

and control; (d) adhocracy, defined as flexibility; and (e) individualism. Fisher

(2000) defines three dimensions of culture: (a) comfort, have parental vision towards

49

the members; (b) complacency, in which individuals are dependent on their work

place for their own wellbeing; and (c) need for contribution, refers to commitment to

changes which is accepted by individuals in the work place.

The competing values framework (CVF) conceptualizes the differences between

organizational cultures with two dimensions: structure and focus (Quinn &

Rohrbaugh 1983). The structure dimension ranges from flexibility at one extreme to

control at the opposite extreme. This dimension identifies the difference between

organizations that attempts for accepting agreeable behaviors and the organizations

that allow their employees to have their own behaviors. The focus dimension ranges

from an external focus to an internal focus. An internal focus emphasizes factors

internal to the organization, such as employee satisfaction, while an external focus

emphasizes the organization's ability to function well in the work place environment

(Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983; Dimmit 2004; Cameron and Quinn 2006).

Different types of culture exist in organizations. Based on competing values

framework (CVF), organizations can have the clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy

culture (Figure 2.3). Clan emphasizes shared values and goals, participation, and a

sense of family. Adhocracy emphasized entrepreneurship, creativity, and

adaptability, while hierarchy refers to many rules and regulations, clear lines of

authority, and it’s concerned with efficiency. Market emphasizes competition,

environmental interaction and customer orientation (Cameron & Ettington, 1988;

Fralinger, 2007; Johnson, 2009).

The connection between culture in organization and psychological empowerment is

built on the body of research describing the relationship between the aspects of

50

contextual factors and employees’ work behaviors (Spreitzer, 1996). Spreitzer (1996)

suggests that future studies should explore the relationships between each of the

work characteristics and empowerment. Hence, it may be academically and

practically meaningful to check how empowerment is related to organizational

culture in the context of higher education.

Various researchers have looked into the process of empowerment and concluded a

number of conditions that are essential to the implementation of academics’

empowerment. Empowerment in the work place cannot be without environmental

contexts because producing empowerment requires changing organizational cultures

and environments. Organizational environments or climates can facilitate or inhibit

empowerment (Asmawi & Mohan 2010; Contreras-McGavin, 2004).

Flexibility

Clan Glue: loyalty, commitment

Leadership: mentor, facilitator, team builder Theory of effectiveness: Human development and

participation produce effectiveness

Adhocracy Glue: innovation,

development Leadership: innovator, entrepreneur, visionary Theory of effectiveness: innovativeness, vision,

and new resources produce effectiveness

Hierarchy Glue: formal procedures Leadership: coordinator,

Monitor, organizer Theory of effectiveness:

control and efficiency with capable processes produce

effectiveness

Market Glue: goal achievement Leadership: hard driver, competitor, and producer Theory of effectiveness: aggressively competing

and customer focus produce effectiveness

Control

Figure 2.3. The Competing Values Framework

(Source: Adapted from: Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture, by K. S.

Cameron, & R. E. Quinn, 2006, p.46)

Inte

rnal

short

-ter

m E

xtern

al lo

ng

-term

com

petitiv

e

51

According to the 2003 Higher Education Report, culture can lead to successful

governance by trust which is accrued between the superiors and subordinates.

Effective university culture, controls information, teaches and presents appropriate

behavior, and motivates individuals. These components of culture can shape internal

relations and values. Organizational culture is a key to the process and structure of

decision making in universities.

Within organizations, including universities, culture defines appropriate behavior,

connecting and motivating employees, as well as governing the way information is

processed within institutions, while shaping their personal interactions. Shaping of

organizational culture depends on the beliefs and practices of trustees,

administrators, and academics regarding the responsibilities of campus community

members, competitors, and society (ASHE, 2003). The university culture is full of

complexity as the beliefs and practices of trustees, senior administrators, academic

staff, campus community members, competitors, and society combine to

fundamentally shape the effectiveness of that university.

The literature shows a lack of study about the relationship between organizational

culture and psychological empowerment among academics in universities.

Organizational culture can be a powerful influence on psychological empowerment

(Johnson, 2001; Spreitzer, 1995, 2006). But a question arises, that, which type of

culture is needed in universities that help academics to be better decision maker,

achieve freedom and autonomy, more growth professionally and be more effective in

teaching and research and as a whole be more qualified and feel empowered

psychologically?

52

This study therefore, looks at organizational culture as one of the predominate

elements for determining the perception of academics toward psychological

empowerment in a multi-dimensional perspective. Universities’ leadership should

identify the dominant type of organizational culture and take actions to balance the

organizational culture which is suitable for increasing the level of psychological

empowerment.

Therefore, it may be academically and practically meaningful to check how

psychological empowerment is related to organizational culture types to gain better

insight on the concept of empowerment culture in higher education. Based on this

rationale, the following hypothesis proposed for this study: There is a relationship

between four types of organizational culture and psychological empowerment among

academics in research universities.

2.8 Relationship between Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has different definition in different theories. Maslow divided

humans’ basic needs into five levels: physiology, safety, love and belongingness,

esteem, and self-actualization. If these needs are fulfilled, people will have self-

esteem, self-confidence and self-respect. Maslow argued that humans attempt to

achieve self-actualizing (Robbins, 2001).

Erg theory by Alderfer (1969) is a revised version of Maslow theory and divides

human needs into three approaches: Existence needs, psychological needs, and safety

needs that include substantial conditions for living and physical conditions for

working (salary, welfare, hunger and thirst). The second aspect is related to

correlative needs of significance and all social potentials of employees in their

53

working environments. Finally, there are growth needs. These refer to the needs of

individuals’ nobility, which includes all types of capacities are needed for

effectiveness and success (Wu, 2006).

Need achievement theory by McClelland (1965) is contributed to the employee’s

positive work place attitudes. The first is the need for achievement. When individuals

desire to achieve something, they follow an internal motivation to obtain fulfillment.

The second is the need for affiliation. This is the need for admission, affection and

friendship as well as the desire to establish socially interactive behavior relationship.

High affiliation needs focus on intercommunicative activities and preference for

social relationships above organization tasks. Finally, there is the need for power, or

desire to obtain power and authority. Those who have a high need for power always

desire to dominate or control others (Robbins, 2001).

Vroom’s (1964) Expectancy theory found that people choose and intent to

accomplish tasks in their work place based on their expectations and the amount of

rewards they get by doing that task properly. It focuses on three key elements: effort-

performance relationship, performance-reward relationship, and rewards-personal

goals relationship (Robbins, 2001).

Adams formulated the Equity theory of job motivation in 1965. It is based on a

reasonable and fair exchange. Adams argues that job satisfaction seen in the fair

exchange of task and rewards they get after accomplishing that task in the work

place. Equity theory consists three aspects:1) the input that employees put in work;

2) rewards they get and the comparison between input and output; 3) and the

comparison between those with equal levels.

54

The motivation-hygiene theory is called two-factor theory. Herzberg (1966) put job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction into two different categories that were not connected

with each othe. He noted that workplace behavior can be affected by hygiene (the

work environment) or by motivation (the challenge of the work itself). The best

result is not from improving the quality of the work environment, but comes from

improving the challenge of the work (Fisher, 1999).

Another approach is the person-environment fit theory of job satisfaction. This

theory suggests that job satisfaction is a result of congruence between the employee’s

perception of the work situation, and the employee’s work values. This model

emphasizes the interaction between the employee’s values and norms and the

working environment of the workplace and represents a person-environment fit.

Hackman and Oldman (1980) identified five main facets that can impact job

satisfaction including: task identity, task significance, skill variety, autonomy, and

feedback.

Based on Locke (1976) there are three approaches that cause job attitudes. Job

attitudes can be derived from differences between what the job offers to the person

and what the person expects, to what extent the job fulfills the personal needs and

values of employees. For this study, job satisfaction is based on the theoretical

framework which represents an affective reaction to a job and contains multi-

dimensional aspects (Spector, 1997).

The professional role of academics has complexities that include teaching,

counseling, conducting research and accepting positions in departments and

university. Academics often experience confusion about their role expectations. This

55

confusion is often caused by poor or limited information or resources, which can

cause job dissatisfaction (Lyons, 1971; Spreitzer, Kizilos & Nason, 1997; Davies,

Laschinger & Andrusyszyn, 2006).

Empowerment leads to increased work effectiveness. Numerous studies have linked

the effects of empowerment to job satisfaction (Spreitzer, Kizilos & Nason, 1997;

Hung, 2005; Davies, Laschinger & Andrusyszyn, 2006; Laschinger, Purdy &

Almost, 2007; Lautizi, Laschinger & Ravazzolo, 2009). Kanter (1977) notes that

employees who access to power from information, support, resources and

opportunities become more creative and innovative and they can carry out job

activities effectively. She believes that when these organizational characteristics are

present, employees are more satisfied with their work (Kanter, 1977).

The multi-dimensional role of academics in universities causes role conflict and over

load. Role conflict and work over load may result in job dissatisfaction, especially

when the structural empowerment and psychological empowerment are not in place.

Academics are more satisfied when they have access to resources and support,

information, opportunities in the university they work. Changes to the research

universities occurred at a rapid pace. Therefore, academics who are experiencing the

negative effects of restructuring in the educational system may feel greater degrees

of job dissatisfaction.

This satisfaction in the work place result from having too much responsibility and

workload, limited participation in decision making, limited opportunity, and lack of

resources and support. When academics have access to structurally empowering

conditions (resources, information, opportunities, and supports) then they are able to

56

achieve effectiveness and their work goals. Enhancing employees’ perception about

meaningfulness and impact of their task and work lead to increased job satisfaction

(Laschinger et al., 2007).

Empirical findings have supported that, empowerment was found to be significantly

related to work satisfaction in organizations (Liden, Wayne & Sparraw, 2000;

Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; Liu et al., 2006). Hackman & Oldham (1976)

noted that employees who feel their jobs worthy feel higher levels of work

satisfaction than those who perceive their jobs as less worthy and meaningful. Short

& Rinehart (1994) measure the relationship between psychological empowerment in

educational settings with job satisfaction (Short & Rinehart, 1994).

Laschinger & Havens (1996) found that structural empowerment is strongly related

to perceived control over nursing practice, which is subsequently related to job

satisfaction. Laschinger et al. (2001) found that higher levels of structural

empowerment were predictive of greater psychological empowerment, which in turn,

result in higher levels of job satisfaction. Laschinger et al. (2007) found that greater

structural empowerment of managers contributes to greater job satisfaction in the

case of nurse managers.

These findings show a current lack of study on empowerment and job satisfaction.

Most of these researches have been conducted in the health care and business areas

in western settings. Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis proposed for

this study: There is a relationship between psychological empowerment and job

satisfaction among academics in research universities.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05133.x/full#b8


57

2.9 Relationship between Psychological Empowerment and Organizational

Commitment

Academics’ commitment to their university provides important consequences for the

academics as well as for the university as a whole. Universities need academics that

not only join their university but continue to remain actively involved in creating

new knowledge in an innovative manner, utilize new curriculum and techniques for

the process of teaching and learning; evaluate the professional programs, follow the

international standards of qualification in higher education context, cooperate in the

process of decision making, and have interaction with their peers and students. Thus,

it is necessary for universities to enhance the feeling of involvement among their

academics that leads to innovation in the context of higher education. Academics

commitment to the university is psychological connection with is critical for

sufficient levels of participation and involvement in the departments and university

Prior research shows that work experiences, personal and organizational factors such

as leadership, serve as antecedents to organizational commitment (Mowday et al.,

1982; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). Empowered

employees see themselves with more capacity to participate and attach to their jobs

and organizations in a more meaningful way, act independently, and have a higher

commitment to their organization (Spreitzer, 1995; Wayne, Kraimer, Seibert &

Liden, 1999 Liden, & Sparrowe, 2000).

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) suggest that employees with high level of

empowerment have more concentration on their tasks which result in high level of

organizational commitment. In other words, individuals who believe their job is

meaningful have higher levels of commitment to their organization and motivation to

58

act (Wiley, 1999; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; DeCicco et al., 2006; Liu et al.,

2006).

In general, commitment reflects loyalty by employees and a willingness to work

toward achieving organizational goals (Meyer & Allen, 1997). There are two basic

approaches have been used to study organizational commitment: commitment-related

attitudes and commitment-related behaviors. The commitment-related attitude

approach refers to an affective attachment to the organization, its values and goals

(Buchanan, 1974 cited by Ugboro, 2006). Employees with a strong affective

commitment remain with an organization because they want to. Employees with a

strong continuance commitment remain because they have to, and employees with a

strong normative commitment remain because they feel they ought to (Meyer, Allen

& Smith, 1993).

The commitment-related behavior approach refers to internal feelings to perform

tasks leads to behavioral actions and results in achieving the goals and missions of

organization. Employees who have a strong sense of organizational commitment are

more likely to contribute to the achievement of organizational goals. They are more

motivated, have lower turnover, and feel a greater sense of satisfaction with their

tasks, and participate with the productivity of the organization. Employees with the

high level of organizational commitment contribute to the positive work place

outcomes. Therefore, it is important for the leader in higher education to provide

opportunities and strategies in the university that enhance the level of organizational

commitment among academics.

59

Mowdays et al. (1982) identifies organizational commitment as a combination of

both psychological and behavioral patterns. According to Mowdays et al. (1982),

organizational commitment is a combination of strong belief and desire of employees

to stay with the organization in order to achieve its goals (Mowdays et al., 1982 cited

by Keiser, 2007). To understand the nature of the complex relationship between

employees and their organizations, many researchers focused on commitment in the

workplace. Organizational commitment is not only a psychological state focusing on

the relationship an individual has with an organization and his willingness to stay

with that organization, but also on the nature of that psychological state (Allen &

Meyer,1997).

According to Meyer and Allen (1991) three-component model of commitment are:

affective commitment refers to employee's positive emotional attachment to the

organization. An employee who has affective commitment is strongly eager to stay

with the organization.

Continuance commitment refers to the employees’ commitment to the organization

in order to not lose the benefits from the organization such as losing economic and

social costs. Employee staying with the organization is a matter of need. Normative

commitment refers to employees’ commitment to and remains with an organization

because of feelings of obligation, Such as agreement with organization.

Kanter (1977) suggests that employees who have high access to the growth

opportunity in the organization are more likely to have high mobility and

commitment to their work place. In other word, employees with the opportunity for

60

professional growth and access to information and rewards, have more aspiration for

participating and involving in their organizations.

The studies that show a strong relationship between work place empowerment and

commitment suggests that organizational structures such as access to rewards,

resources and information , leadership in higher education can enhance academics’

organizational commitment. Academics with high level of commitment can influence

on productivity and effectiveness of their universities and departments. Employees

who feel empowered at work are likely to be committed to the organization that

provides this empowering experience.

Negative working conditions are a major cause of turnover and reduced commitment

to the organization. Structural and psychological empowerment represents a

powerful approach to creating workplaces that attract and retain individuals to

organizations. Numerous studies have linked empowerment to organizational

commitment (Wilson & Laschinger, 1994; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian & Casier,

2000; DeCicco et al., 2006).

Kirkman and Rosen (1999) found that perceptions of empowerment are significantly

related to organizational commitment. Studies in business and health care settings

show that psychological empowerment has a positive and significant relationship

organizational commitment (King & Ehrhard; 1997; Laschinger, et al., 2001; Henkin

& Marchiori, 2003; Cho, Laschinger & Wong, 2006; Laschinger, Finegan & Wilk,

2009).

Organizational commitment of academics to the university provides important

consequences for the academic staffs and the university. Neumann and Finaly-

61

Neumann (1990) indicate that “universities need dedicated academic staffs who not

only join their university, but continue to remain actively involved in innovative

research activities; prepare new materials and approaches for teaching; build, assess,

and reform academic programs maintain high levels of academic standards;

participate in academic decision making; and work closely and actively with their

students” (p. 77). Lambert (2006) has done a study to investigate the relationships

between empowerment and job commitment as experienced by academics in three

colleges. The result shows a positive and significant correlation between academics

staff empowerment and commitment to their organization.

Generally speaking, based on the review of literature, relationships between

empowerment and work place outcomes reviewed. But there is lack of study on

understanding the relationship of empowerment and organizational commitment in

research universities.

The literature shows lack of knowledge on academics empowerment in the context of

higher education, especially in Malaysian context. Based on this rationale, the

following hypothesis proposed for this study: There is a relationship between

psychological empowerment and organizational commitment among academics in

research universities.

2.10 Relationship between Structural Empowerment and Job Satisfaction

Kanter's (1977) theory of structural empowerment suggests managerial strategies for

increasing conditions for structural empowerment. Structural empowerment can

result in greater job satisfaction among academics by control of university

environment. Researchers found that organizational structure (information, rewards,

62

support) impact on positively on work place outcomes. Thus, job satisfaction among

academics is shaped by social structural characteristics in research universities.

Kanter’s theory of structural factors suggests that employee behavior is shaped by

the degree of access to empowerment structures in the organization. Importance of

the structural empowerment for work place outcomes in the context of research

universities requires more attention. Structural empowerment studies may add to the

understanding of job satisfaction in research universities.

When situations are structured in such a way that employees feel empowered, the

organization is likely to benefit, both in terms of the attitudes of employees and the

organization’s effectiveness. The social structures within organizations that Kanter

believes are particularly important to the growth of empowerment are 1) having

access to information, 2) receiving support, 3) having access to resources necessary

to do the job, and 4) having the opportunity to learn and grow. Access to these

structures will increase job satisfaction among academics.

Patrick and Laschinger (2006) examined the relationship between structural

empowerment and perceived organizational support and the effect of these factors on

role satisfaction. Manojlovich and Laschinger (2002) found that structural

empowerment predicted 30% of the variance in job satisfaction. Rhoades and

Eisenberger (2002) stated that managers who describe their work environments as

empowering and perceive strong organizational support for their contributions will

report high levels of role satisfaction.

The importance of structural empowerment for work place outcomes in the context

of research universities requires more attention. Structural empowerment studies may

63

add to the understanding of job satisfaction in research universities. Thus, it is

reasonable to expect that academics who see their university as empowering with

structural factors will report high levels of job satisfaction. Based on this rationale,

the following hypothesis proposed for this study: There is a relationship between

structural empowerment and job satisfaction among academics in research

universities.


Structural Empowerment and Job Satisfaction

Spreitzer (1996) defines psychological empowerment as the affective state that

employees must experience for interventions to be successful. Psychological

empowerment in educational settings is a motivational construct that consists of six

dimensions: decision making, professional growth, status, and self-efficacy, impact,

autonomy.

Organizational structure such as information, resources and support provides

structural empowerment which then leads to existence of psychological

empowerment in the organization. In other words, psychological empowerment is a

consequence of structural empowerment. In addition, psychological empowerment is

related to job satisfaction in organizations. Studies suggest that psychological

empowerment can be an intervening variable between structural empowerment and

job satisfaction.

Kanter’s (1977) theory of structural empowerment has been found to be associated

with job satisfaction. Numerous studies have shown significant positive relationships

between structural empowerment and job satisfaction (Laschinger & Havens, 1996;

Laschinger et al., 2001). But no study has yet examined whether psychological

64

empowerment mediates relationship between structural empowerment and job

satisfaction.

Although structural empowerment has been empirically associated with job

satisfaction in several studies, the current study is one of only a few that examining

the mediating role of psychological empowerment in relationship with structural

empowerment and job satisfaction. The fact that changes in structural empowerment

indirectly affect job satisfaction emphasizes the importance of studying

psychological empowerment in the organization.

The findings from previous studies suggest that psychological empowerment has an

important role for improving job satisfaction with in the organization (Laschinger,

Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk, 2004). Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis

proposed for this study: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship

between structural empowerment and job satisfaction.

2.12 Relationship between Structural Empowerment and Organizational

Commitment

The influence of committed employees on the organization's effectiveness and

productivity can be significant. Structures that foster empowered behavior of

academics may enable them to be more committed to the universities’ goals.

Spreitzer and Mishra (2002) found that empowerment helps the enhancement of

commitment of academics to their departments and universities which, in turn, leads

to a lower level of turnover among them (Dermott, Laschinger, & Shamian, 1996).

Organizational commitment is an important predictor of employee turnover and is

therefore important to consider given the high costs associated with turnover in

65

higher education. Structural empowerment promotes organizational commitment

both directly and by increasing the feelings of psychological empowerment in

healthcare settings (Wagner, 2007).

Laschinger, Finegan, and Wilk, (2009) state that structural empowerment plays a

significant role in the fostering of organizational commitment. Increasing academics’

commitment to their departments cannot be successful unless the expected linkage

between structural empowerment and organizational commitment in higher

education is explored.

Previous studies found that structural empowerment and organizational commitment

were positively correlated to each other in organizations. Indeed, the more they

perceive a high level of structural empowerment, the more they want to stay in the

organizations (Decicco, Laschinger, & Kerr, 2006; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, &

Wilk, 2001; Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001; Vacharakiat, 2008). Based on

this rationale, the following hypothesis proposed for this study: There is a

relationship between structural empowerment and organizational commitment.


Structural Empowerment and Organizational Commitment

An integrative model of empowerment in the workplace shows that psychological

empowerment mediates the relationship between the structural empowerment and

organizational commitment that is important achievement in understanding of

concept of organizational commitment.

Academics enter work situations and make various investments in as well as

contributions to the university. The university is expected by academics as well as

66

other staff to provide a supportive environment that facilitates their skills, abilities

and professions and giving rewards for their participations. University provides a

supportive environment and rewarding their academics in order to foster their

employees’ commitment. This exchange perspective notes that academics

commitment to their university is critically related to supportive environment of

university.

Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis proposed for this study:

Psychological empowerment mediates relationship between structural empowerment

and organizational commitment.

2.14 Relationship between Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction

In the hypothesized model, it was also anticipated that different types of

organizational culture would lead to job satisfaction among academics.

Organizational culture is expected to have a direct effect on job satisfaction

(Gregory, Stanley, Harris, Achilles Armenakis & Shook, 2009; MacIntosh &

Doherty, 2010; Melnyk, Fineout-Overholt, Giggleman, & Cruz, 2010).

That organizational culture influences work place outcomes such as job satisfaction

is an assumption implicitly held by many managers and management researchers,

although few empirical studies have provided detailed insight into the relationship.

This study attempts to examine the relationship between organizational culture and

job satisfaction. Organizational culture is commonly known as the values, beliefs and

basic assumptions that help guide and coordinate member behavior.

Research is lacking that has specifically examined the relationship between different

types of organizational culture and job satisfaction of academics (Recardo and Jolly,





67

1997; Wang & Hwang 2007). Lund, (2003) examines the impact of organizational

culture types on job satisfaction in a survey of marketing professionals in a cross-

section of firms. Despite numerous studies of job satisfaction in the industrial and

public sectors, academics’ job satisfaction remains an un-researched topic especially

in relation to organizational culture. Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis

proposed for this study: There is a relationship between organizational culture and

job satisfaction.


Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction

Empowerment theorists view psychological empowerment as the mechanism through

which contextual factors influence individual attitudes and behaviors (Conger &

Kanungo, 1988; Liden & Tewksbury, 1995; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Thomas

&Velthouse, 1990; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997; Egan Yang & Bartlett, 2004).

Organizational culture is the one of the contextual factors that is neglected in these

kinds of studies in the context of higher education. In other words, the process of

relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction neglected. The

psychological empowerment of academics can explain how resources, information,

support and opportunity in university can lead to better job satisfaction.

Psychological empowerment explains the attitudes of academics towards these power

and opportunities in their work place. Thus, based on this rationale, the following

hypothesis proposed for this study: Psychological empowerment mediates the

relationship between four types of organizational culture and job satisfaction.

68

2.16 Relationship between Organizational Culture and Organizational

Commitment

Organizational commitment has been examined in organizational literature in

business and educational settings. But the relationship between different types of

organizational culture and organizational commitment has received little attention in

research universities especially in southeastern countries. To acknowledge the multi-

dimensional nature of organizational culture influence on organizational

commitment, it is necessary to understand the relationship between different types of

culture and organizational commitment (Lok &Crawford, 1999).

The study by Ipek (2010) shows that organizational commitment at compliance level

was predicted from power and role cultures, while organizational commitment at

identification and internalization levels was predicted from achievement and support

cultures. Strong corporate culture predicts positive outcomes such as commitment to

organization (Meglino, Ravlin, Adkins & Cheryl, 1989; Laschinger, Finegan, &

Shamian, 2001; Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk, 2009; Yiing, & Ahmad, 2009).

Despite vast number of research on organizational commitment, very little empirical

research has examined the relationship between organizational culture and

organizational commitment within higher education. Based on this rationale, the

following hypothesis proposed for this study: There is a relationship between

organizational culture and organizational commitment.


Organizational Culture and Organizational Commitment

Spreitzer (1995) defines empowerment as “increased intrinsic task motivation

manifested in a set of four cognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his/her

69

work role: competence, impact, meaning, and self-determination”(p.1443).

Meanwhile, organizational culture is viewed as one of the predominant elements

shaping the environment organizations, and as an important aspect to organizational

productivity and effectiveness (Bailey, 2009).

Organizational culture can be a powerful influence on components of psychological

empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995, 2006; Bosley, 2005; Samad, 2007; Chiang & Jang,

2008; Bailey, 2009; Johnson, 2009). Organizational culture provides a great

approach for understanding the concept of relation between person and environment

which leads to successful psychological empowerment within an organization. It

considers individual attitudes, employee behavior, and organizational practices as

interactional aspects in the work place (Martin 1992).

Because of the importance of organizational culture and organizational commitment

in organizational development, it is important to study and understand the

relationship between organizational culture and organizational commitment in

research universities. It has been widely argued in previous researches that

organizational culture has influence on positive work place behaviors, particularly on

organizational commitment (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Van Vianen, 2000; Wang,

Feng, & Hwang, 2009).

Review of literature reveals that studies on the relationship between organizational

culture and organizational commitment in higher education are limited. There is lack

of research attention in the process of the relationship between organizational culture

and organizational commitment. Previous studies show a research gap that requires

70

further investigation in this area of study (Lok & Crawford, 1999, 2001; Lok,

Westwood & Crawford, 2005).

Organizational culture is one of the contextual factors neglected in these kinds of

studies in the context of higher education. Thus, based on this rationale, the

following hypotheses proposed for this study: Psychological empowerment mediates

the relationship between four types of organizational culture and organizational

commitment.

2.18 Theoretical Framework of Study

The theoretical framework of this study is based on Laschinger’s (2001) work place

empowerment model that contains two empowerment theories, structural

empowerment theory (Kanter, 1977) and psychological empowerment theory

(Spreitzer, 1995). The framework underlying this study contains organizational

culture, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and structural and psychological

empowerment within higher education. Since this concept comes from organizational

management to higher education the transferred ideas within a higher education

setting is important. As illustrated in Figure 2.4., structural empowerment

(information, resources, support, opportunities, formal and informal power) and

organizational culture are mediated by psychological empowerment of academics,

which is defined in educational context (decision making, professional growth,

status, self-efficacy, autonomy, and impact) to produce work place outcomes (job

satisfaction and organizational commitment).

According to Kanter (1977), power is obtained from the ability to access support,

information, resources and opportunities from academics’ position in the university.

71

Access to these empowerment structures is influenced by the degree of formal and

informal power an academic staff has in the university. Academics with sufficient

power are able to do the tasks that lead to the achievement of universities’ goals.

The empowered academics have the ability to empower their peers and students, and

thus provide a productive and creative university environment. On the other hand,

academics in positions that do not have sufficient opportunity and power feel

powerlessness in the university. Academics with less empowerment have lack of

power and control over their responsibilities (decision making and participating in

the process of teaching and research) and have less autonomy, and less committed to

the university.

Psychological empowerment is selected in this study as a mediator, since the

structural empowerment is not sufficient to produce and enhance positive behavioral

outcomes. Empowerment is not just a collection of organizational structures, but it is

individual attitudes and feeling about what academics feel about their role and their

task and the status they have in the work place. Academics’ psychological

empowerment has influence on work place outcomes. Based on Spreitzer (1997),

empowerment produces an active self-orientation to academics work role, so it is

reasonable to expect that an active attitude can be change to positive behavior.

Through empowerment, academics can show more job satisfaction and show more

commitment to their work place. Structural empowerment would have a direct

positive effect on psychological empowerment, which in turn would have a direct

positive effect on work satisfaction and organizational commitment.

72

Organizational culture shapes academics’ behaviors and may have relationship with

work place outcomes in research universities by mediating of psychological

empowerment. Culture can be seen as the accepted norms, values, beliefs and rules

that are shared by the academics and other staff in research universities setting. Since

most of the studies on empowerment especially in relation to organizational culture

have been carried out in western countries, and the findings could not be generalized

in Malaysia due to different sociocultural contexts, this study attempts to examine the

relation between organizational culture empowerment and workplace outcomes in

higher education in Malaysian research universities.

The connection between academics empowerment and job satisfaction and

organizational commitment show the importance of positive workplace behaviors in

increasing the effectiveness of universities by academics. Meanwhile, psychological

empowerment can affect job satisfaction and organizational commitment. While

structural empowerment has been empirically associated with job satisfaction and

organizational commitment in several studies, the aim of the current study is to

demonstrate the intervening role of psychological empowerment.

Since academics with high level of job satisfaction are more empowered to face to

challenges and pressures within the structure of universities and to be more affiliated

to their departments and show less level of burnout, the results suggest that

leadership strategies and interventions that increase feelings of empowerment in

academics will allow them to respond more effectively to the demands of their work

environment in research universities.

73

By linking structural empowerment with psychological empowerment, a broader

understanding of the empowerment process will be obtained, especially on how these

structural organizational factors influence academics’ feelings or experience of

personal empowerment in the work setting. The integration of empowerment may

provide better explanation to higher education’s total empowerment paradiagm.

Therefore, this study embraces and builds on the research regarding the integration of

structural and psychological empowerment. This study is introducing other

organizational aspects, such as organizational culture, as an integral part of

empowerment.

Psychological empowerment may serve as a mechanism through which structural

empowerment and organizational culture influence work place outcomes. Clearly,

there is a need for greater attention to be paid to understanding the mechanisms and

processes of relationship between contextual factors and work place outcomes in

research universities as there are few studies in this context on empowerment of

academics. So the purpose of this study is to understand the mediating role of

psychological empowerment between structural empowerment, organizational

culture and job satisfaction as well as organizational commitment (see Figure 2.4).

2.19 Summary

The last two decades have brought a substantial body of new research in

understanding empowerment at the work place. The biggest contribution has been

more integration of the social-structural and psychological perspectives on

empowerment. This integration notes a need for further research to develop a more

comprehensive theory of empowerment at the work place. Therefore, previous

studies have some of the pieces of this theoretical model but a theory would

74

articulate how the pieces fit together into a whole. The theoretical framework

identifies better definition, and the antecedents and consequences of empowerment.

This study will identify the mechanisms and processes of psychological

empowerment, which result in positive work place outcomes. There is still work to

be done in integrating the current knowledge with a more comprehensive theory of

empowerment in organizations, especially in higher education settings.

75

Figure 2.4. Theoretical Framework of Study

Formal power

Job definition

Discretion (flexible)

Recognition (visible)

Relevance (central)

Informal power Connection with

-Sponsors

-Peers

-Subordinates

-Cross functional group

Empowerment structures

-Opportunity structures

-Power structures

-Resources

-Information

-Support

Meaning

-Status

-Self-efficacy

-Pay

-Promotion

-Supervision

-Fridge Benefits

-Contingent reward

-Operating procedure

-Nature of work

-Communication

-Affective commitment to university

-Normative commitment to university

-Continuance commitment to university

Competency

-Professional growth

Self-determination

-Autonomy

Impact

-Decision making

-Impact

-Dominant characteristics of university

-leadership style

-Management of lecturers

-Organizational glue,

-Statistic emphases

-Criteria success

Market Clan Hierarchy Adhocracy

Increased commitment to university

Increased lecturers job satisfaction

Psychological empowerment Structural empowerment

Organizational culture

76

CHAPTER 3

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This descriptive co-relational research study seeks to ascertain the mediating role of

psychological empowerment in relationship with structural empowerment,

organizational culture and work place outcomes (job satisfaction and organizational

commitment) among academics in research universities in Malaysia. This chapter

consists of the research design, research framework, population and sampling,

measurement and instruments, pilot test, reliability and validity, and data analysis

procedures.

3.2 Research Design

This quantitative co-relational research design seeks to ascertain the relationship

between study variables. Additionally, the selected study method is used to ascertain

the role of the mediating variable in relationship between predictors and criterion

variables. The relationships among the latent variables are assessed using structural

equation modeling (SEM) through the Amos statistical analysis program. Amos

assists the researcher in generating and testing theoretical models (Arbuckle, 2006;

Byrne, 2001).

SEM is a statistical procedure that combines path and factor analysis to specify

relationships between observed variables (Klem, 2000). Therefore, structural

equation modeling (SEM) is chosen for this study to examine the relationship

between these variables.

77

3.3 Research Hypotheses of Study

The research hypotheses in Figure 3.1. describes the mediating role of psychological

empowrment as a latent variable in relationship between four types of organizational

culture and structural empowerment with work place outcomes (organizational

commitment and job satisfaction). In order to conduct mediation effect based on

Baron and Kenny‘s (1986) mediation approach, three specific hypotheses for each

main hypothesis is conducted. Therefore, four main hypotheses and nine specific

hypotheses examine the mediating role of psychological empowerment in

relationship between

1. Stucutral empowemrent and job satisfaction:

a. There is a positive relationship between stuctural empowerment and job

satisfaction.

b. There is a positive relarionship between structural empowerment and

psychological empowerment.

c. There is a positive relationship between psychological empowerment and

job satisfaction.

2. Structural empowerment and oganizarional commitment:

a. There a is positive relationship between stuctural empowerment and

organizational commitment.

b. There is a positive relationship between structural empowerment and

psychological empowerment.

c. There is a positive relationship between psychological empowerment


78

3. Organizational culture (Clan, adhocracy, market, and heirarchy) and job

satisfaction:

a. There is a positive relationship between organizational culture (Clan,

adhocracy, market, and heirarchy) and job satisfaction.

b. There is a positive relationship between organizational culture (Clan,

adhocracy, market, and heirarchy) and psychological empowerment.


job satisfaction.

4. Organizational culture (Clan, adhocracy, market, and heirarchy) and

organizational commitment:

a. There is a positive relationship between organizational culture (Clan,

adhocracy, market, and heirarchy) and organizational commitment.

b. There is a positive relationship between organizational culture (Clan,

adhocracy, market, and heirarchy) and psychological empowerment.


job satisfaction.

3.4 Measurement and Instrument

This study was carried out within a quantitative framework, allowing the gathering

data by questionnaire with participants of this study. The questionnaire consists of a

demographic information survey, structural empowerment scale, organizational

culture assessment scale, psychological empowerment scale, job satisfaction survey,

and organizational commitment questionnaire.

79

Structural

empowerment

Clan culture

Adhocracy culture

Market culture

Hierarchy culture

Job satisfaction

Organizational

commitment

Psychological

empowerment

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

H7

H8

H9

H10

H11

H12

H13

H14

H15

H16

H17

Figure 3.1. Research Hypotheses of Study

80

Demographic Information Survey

This information includes the personal data characteristics of age, gender, work

experience within the current department, faculty position/rank held, and number of

years worked as an academic staff (see Appendix A1).

Structural Empowerment Scale

Conditions for work effectiveness questionnaire (CWEQ-II), a modified version of

the Conditions for Work Effectiveness questionnaire (CWEQ) was selected (see

Appendix A2). CWEQ-II consists of 19 items that measure the six components of

structural empowerment described by Kanter (1977) including opportunity (three

items); information (three items); resources (three items); support (three items); the

job activities scale (JAS) for formal power (three items); and the organizational

relationships scale (ORS) used to measure informal power (four items) respectively

and two items for global empowerment scale, which is used for construct via

validation purposes (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian & Wilk, 2001). Rating scale

format is seven-point Likert scale from (1) very strongly disagree to (7) very strongly

agree. Scores of total structural empowerment based on the sum of all 36 items range

from 21 to 147. The mean scores are used for data analysis in the study.

Organizational Culture Assessment Scale

The OCAI is a six-item ipsative response tool to assess organizational culture. The

OCAI (Cameron & Quinn 1999, Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) is designed to measure

and identify four types of cultures in university. Modification is done to the tool from

ipsative scale with four dimensions to a 24-item seven-point Likert scale tool ranging

81

from (1) very strongly disagree to (7) very strongly agree. Each culture type is

measured with six items.

Meanwhile, modification in some items is done in order to change the business

context to research university context (e.g. item 13 “The glue that holds the

organization together is loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organization

runs high” is changed to “The glue that holds the university together is loyalty and

mutual trust”). Therefore, total organizational culture, based on the sum of all 24

items, can range from 24 to 168. The mean scores are used for data analysis in the

study (see Appendix A3).

Psychological Empowerment Instrument

School participant empowerment scale (SPES) measures the perception of

psychological empowerment within an educational setting (Short & Rinehart, 1992).

It is a 39-item instrument on a five-point scale. The items are changed to seven-point

Likert scale ranging from (1) very strongly disagree to (7) very strongly agree. The

instrument measures six dimensions of psychological empowerment: decision

making (10 items); professional growth (six items); status (six items); self-efficacy

(six items); autonomy (four items); and impact (six items) (Short and Rinehart 1992).

Modification in some items is done in order to change the school context to research

university context (e.g. item 32 “I have the opportunity to collaborate with other

teachers” is changed to “I have the opportunity to collaborate with other faculty in

my department”). Item 18 is added in order to focus more on research tasks: “I have

the freedom to make decisions on research topics”. Scores for total psychological

82

empowerment, based on the sum of all 36 items, can range from 38 to 266. The mean

scores are used for data analysis in the study (see Appendix A3).

Job Satisfaction Survey

Job satisfaction scale measures nine aspects of job satisfaction, including: pay (four

items); promotion (four items); supervision (four items); fringe benefits (four items);

contingent rewards (four items); operating procedures (four items); co-workers (four

items); nature of work (four items); and communication (four items) (Spector, 1997).

Rating scale format with seven choices per item ranging from strongly disagree to

strongly agree is changed to seven-point likert scale from (1) very strongly disagree

to (7) very strongly agree (see Appendix A4).

The job satisfaction survey has some of its items written in negative (items 2, 4, 6, 8,

10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 36). Scores on each of nine

facet subscales, based on four items each, can range from four to 28, while scores for

total job satisfaction, based on the sum of all 36 items, can range from 36 to 252.

High scores on the scale represent job satisfaction, so the scores on the negatively

worded items are reversed before summing up with the positively worded into facet

and total scores. The mean scores are used for data analysis in the study.

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

Organizational commitment questionnaire measures three types of commitment:

affective commitment, normative commitment, and continuance commitment (Allen

& Meyer, 1997). An 18-item measurement instrument is used .to measure normative

(six items), affective (six items), and continuance (six items) commitment scales.

83

The items are rated based on five-point Likert scale and changed to seven-point

Likert scale from (1) very strongly disagree to (7) very strongly agree (see Appendix

A5).

Modification in some items is done in order to change the business context to

research university context (e.g. item 11 “I would feel guilty if I left my organization

now” is changed to “I would feel guilty if I left my department now”). The

organizational commitment scale has some of its items written in negative (items 2,

8, 10, 12).

Scores for each subscale range from six to 42, while scores for total organizational

commitment are based on 18 items ranging from 18 to 126. The scores on the

negatively worded items are reversed before summing up with the positively worded.

The mean scores are used for data analysis in the study.

3.5 Population

The sampling frame was drawn from academics working in four universities selected

as research universities (UM; USM; UKM; and UPM) by the Ministry of Higher

Education Malaysia in 2006 (Table 3.1). The target population consists of academic

staffs in four research universities in Malaysia. The total numbers of academics who

work in these four research universities in the academic year (2010 – 2011) are

(7877) academics. The target population based on gender distribution was 4003 male

and 3874 female and the total number was 7877.

3.5.1 Sample size

In determining the sample size for this study, there are issues that should be

considered for collecting data to be analyzed using a covariance structure analysis

84

with the maximum likelihood estimation method. In determining sample size,

statistical indices can perform adequately and the results of structural equation

Table 3.1. Population of academic staff based on gender distribution in four

research universities (2008)

University Male Female Total

UM (12 Faculty) 1018 1017 2035

USM (25 Faculty) 1001 667 1668

UKM (13 Faculty) 1012 1242 2254

UPM (16 Faculty) 972 948 1920

Total 4003 3874 7877

Source: Ministry of Higher Education (2008)

modeling (SEM) can yield meaningful and interpretable values when the ratio of 5–

10 participants per estimated parameter rule is used to calculate sample size (Byrne,

1998, 2010; Schreiber et al., 2006; Kline, 2010). Based on the conceptual

framework, there were 6 independent variables. . Based on the result of pilot study,

the effect size (adjusted R square) was 0.16. The sample size was calculated by using

the G* Power 3.1.3 program. The sample size based on G* Power was 154, (α =

0.05) for 6 independent variables (power=0.95).

Some researchers have argued that a minimum sample size must exceed 100, even

though the size of 200 is recommended for a model with moderate complexity

(Marsha, Balla & MacDonald, 1988). Therefore, as a rule of thumb, any number

above 200 is understood to provide sufficient statistical power for data analysis (Hoe,

2008; Kline, 2005). Based on the above criteria and assuming a response rate of

85

50%, the present study requires a sample size of at least 400. Table 3.2 shows the

sample size based on gender distribution of academic staff in four research

universities.

3.6 Sampling Procedure

The ratios of academics in each university were considered in distributing the

questionnaires. Cluster sampling procedure used in the selection of the sample. In

each university, selection of respondents was based on cluster purposive sampling.

First, five faculties (Faculty of Education, Faculty of Medicine, Faculty of

Engineering, Faculty of Science and Faculty of Computer Sciences) were selected

from each university as the selected groups. This sampling is purposive as by

choosing five same faculties (Faculty of Education, Faculty of Medicine, Faculty of

Engineering, Faculty of Science and Faculty of Computer Sciences) in all four

universities (UM; UKM; USM; and UPM) in order to provide more homogeneous

sample and more justification to make generalizations from the sample that is being

studied. Then, from each faculty, a number of academics were selected as subjects of

study by systematic random sampling. Academics were chosen based on academic

staff profiles in each department.

3.7 Data collection procedure

The questionnaires were sent with a covering letter, followed by a reminder letter

two weeks later. Prior to data gathering, negotiation were made with the head of each

department in all four universities for the execution of the research. An introductory

letter from the head of each department explained the purpose of the study as well as

introduced the researcher. The respondents were given two weeks to complete the

questionnaires. Each questionnaire took approximately 30-45 minutes to be

86

completed. The academics were given face to face explanations regarding the

purpose for their participation. To encourage more honest responses, participants

were not required to identify themselves by name or employee number. The

completed questionnaires were picked up after two weeks and a reminder letter was

sent to academics who did not respond. Meanwhile, a website was established for

online responses (www.hrdempo.net). A total of 260 completed questionnaires (65%

return rate) were obtained.

Table 3.2. Sample size based on gender distribution in four research universities

University Male Female Total

UM (5 Faculty) 52 51 103

USM (5 Faculty) 53 35 88

UKM (5 Faculty) 55 57 112

UPM (5 Faculty) 50 47 97

Total 210 190 400

3.8 Pilot Test

In this study, a pilot study was conducted on 50 academics from UiTM. The package

of questionnaires was mailed to them and followed up by a reminder. This pilot study

was done in order to ascertain how much time it took for respondents to answer the

questions to examine the reliability of instrument. In the cover letter respondents

were asked to write their comments. The effect size (adjusted R square) and the

sample size were calculated.

3.9 Validity

Validity described by Huck (2004) as accuracy, was assessed in two ways. Initially,

content validity, including clarity and readability of the items, was assessed by some

87

experts. Feedback was requested from the experts regarding readability, language

specific to the higher education setting, clarity, and redundancy of items. The

feedback provided by the pilot test participants was used to revise the instrument and

provide content validity for the instrument. The instrument was found to be valid.

3.9.1 Content Validity

In order to assess the measurement instrument’s content validity, it was decided to

seek the opinions of experts in higher education. It was felt that this group of experts

possessed an understanding of higher education concepts and was representative of

academic staff within the research universities. The focus group began with a brief

description of the project and the intended aims of the study. All participants were

asked to read the questionnaire package and describe their ideas about the clarity of

each item, the readability of each item, and any redundancy within the instrument.

Overall, the experts provided valuable feedback that was used to modify the

instrument so that it would have a higher level of content validity. This group noted a

few redundant items within the survey. Also highlighted was select vocabulary that

was not pertinent to higher education. For instance, items which were used in the

context of business and industry were changed to higher education context. The

experts felt that the word “organization” was not suitable for the higher education

setting and the alternative “department” was chosen to adequately reflect this specific

setting.

3.9.2 Construct Validity

Construct validity is established through an examination of convergent and

discriminant validity. A construct, according to Merriam & Simpson (2000) is “a

88

theoretical explanation of an attribute or characteristic created by scholars for

purposes of study. Constructs are abstract and, having not been observed directly, are

not considered actual behaviors or events” (p. 161). To assess construct validity one

must first assess how much these characteristics that are not directly observable are

similar as they should theoretically be and represent the construct under

investigation, therefore providing one with convergent validity. Second, one must

assess the extent to which these characteristics that are not directly observable are

able to discriminate from other, different constructs under investigation, therefore

providing one with discriminant validity.

3.9.3 Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is measured by average variance extracted (AVE). A high AVE

(greater than .5) shows that the latent variables have high convergent validity

(Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Average variance extracted:

∑[

]

∑[ ] ∑[ ]

Where is loading of on , Var denotes variance, is the measurement error of

, and ∑ denotes a sum (Fornell & larker, 1981)

3.9.4 Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is determined by examining whether the AVE for each

construct is greater than the squared correlations (shared variance) between the

construct and all other constructs in the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al.,

2006; Farrell, 2010).

89

3.10 Reliability

Reliability is defined as the consistency of a measure. It is important to assess the

reliability of each scale used so that one can understand to what extent the data are

consistent (Huck, 2004). Internal consistency for each of the scales used in this

research was assessed using Cronbach alpha.

3.10.1 Cronbach Alpha Reliability

Cronbach alpha was chosen due to its versatility with the use of continuous variables

(Huck, 2004). For this study, Cronbach alpha reliability was done for both pilot and

whole sample.

Structural Empowerment Scale

The CWEQ-II has been used in previous studies, and an acceptable internal

consistency for each subscale has been established, ranging from .80-.95 for

information, .72 -.89 for support, .71- .88 for resources, and .76 -.85 for opportunity.

The overall reliability of CWEQ-II is .78 to .93 (Laschinger, 2005; Burns & Grove,

1999). Table 3.3 shows the reliability of total structural empowerment instrument

and its dimensions.

Table 3.3. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for conditions for work

effectiveness questionnaire

Instrument Alpha

coefficients

Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire .966

Subscale: Opportunity .839

Information .890

Support .951

Resources .865

Job Activities Scale .921

Organizational Relationship Scale .790

Global Empowerment .833

90

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument

Reliability measures for the culture type subscales in the ipsative format have been

previously documented in the literature: for the clan .74 -.84, adhocracy.79-.83,

hierarchy.73-.77, market .71-.78. Reliability coefficient for the subscale is in the

Likert format as documented in the literature (Cameron & Quinn 1999; Quinn &

Spreitzer, 1991). The responses to each cultural type subscale were totaled to

comprise a comprehensive organizational culture score.

In addition, there have been numerous additional studies, with OCAI scale which

means “Sufficient evidence has been produced regarding the reliability of the OCAI

to create confidence that it matches or exceeds reliability of the most commonly used

instruments in the social, organizational and educational sciences” (Cameron &

Quinn, 1999, p. 140). Table 3.4 shows the reliability of total organizational culture

instrument and four types of organizational culture.

Table 3.4. Cronbach reliability coefficients for organizational culture

assessment instrument

Instrument Alpha

coefficients

Organizational Culture Assessment

Instrument

.939

Subscale: Clan .865

Adhocracy .810

Market .818

Hierarchy .716


Reliability measures for subscales are: decision making .89, professional growth .83;

status .86, self-efficacy .84; impact .82; autonomy .81. The overall scale has

reliability of .94 (Short & Rinehart, 1992). In order to use SPES in higher education

91

setting, slight modifications were made by the researcher. For instance, the wording

was changed to more appropriately reflect the higher education environment. (e.g.

“Principal” changed to “administration”; “school” is changed to “department” or

“university” and teachers changed to academic staff”. Table 3.5 shows the reliability

of total psychological empowerment instrument and its dimensions.

Table 3.5. Cronbach reliability coefficients for faculty psychological

empowerment scale

Instrument Alpha

coefficients

Faculty psychological empowerment scale .975

Subscale: Decision Making .899

Professional

Growth

.862

Status .878

Self-efficacy .892

Autonomy .865

Impact .856


Spector (1997) research was used to validate the subscales of the job satisfaction

survey. The respective alpha coefficients were found to be: pay .75, promotion .73,

supervision .82, fringe benefits .73, contingent rewards .76, operating procedures .62,

coworkers, 62, nature of work .78, and communication .71. The total reliability of

job satisfaction survey was .91 (Spector, 1985, 1997). Table 3.6 shows the reliability

of total job satisfaction instrument and its dimensions.

Table 3.6. Cronbach reliability coefficients for job satisfaction survey

Instrument Alpha

coefficients

Job satisfaction survey .893

Pay .865

Promotion .854

Supervision .884

Fringe benefits .823

Contingent rewards .791

92

Operating procedures .781

Coworkers .723

Nature of work .765

Communication .816

Organisationnel commitment questionnaire

Affective commitment has a Cronbach alpha value of.81 and a split-half reliability

coefficient of.77, which can be considered to be quite good. The Cronbach alpha

reliability coefficient and split-half reliability coefficients for continuance and

normative commitment are .78 and .76 respectively (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Table

3.7 shows the reliability of total organizational commitment instrument and its

dimensions.

Table 3.7. Cronbach reliability coefficients for organizational commitment

questionnaire

Instrument Alpha

coefficients

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire .918

Subscale: Affective .819

Normative .806

Continuance .766

3.10.2 Composite Reliability

Composite reliability measures the internal consistency of the latent construct (Kline,

2005; Hair et al., 2006). By internal consistency, a better estimate can be gained

using the composite reliability formula.

∑

∑ ∑

Where , are the factor loading, factor variance, and unique/error variance

respectively.

93

3.11 Data Analysis

The statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version15 and AMOS

version15 software are utilized for analysis of the data. Amos assists the researcher

in generating and testing theoretical models (Arbuckle, 2006; Byrne, 2001). The

collected data are analyzed using descriptive statistics (means and standard

deviations). In order to assess the mediation effect of psychological empowerment in

relationship between structural empowerment and organizational culture with work

place outcomes, the Baron and Kenny (1986) criteria were followed through

structural equation modeling with AMOS version 15.

Mediation

To establish mediation based on Baron and Kenny (1986) approach, the following

conditions must hold:

First, the independent variable must affect the mediator in the first equation.

Second, the independent variable must be shown to affect the dependent

variable in the second equation; and

Third, the mediator must affect the dependent variable in the third equation.

If these conditions all hold in the predicted direction, then the effect of

independent variable on the dependent variable must be less in the third

equation than in the second.

94

Based on Baron and Kenny (1986) approach, if the effects of independent

variable on dependent variable disappear after mediator controlled, it is called

complete mediation. Partial mediation is the case that the path from independent

variable to dependent variable is reduced but is still significant when mediator is

introduced.

3.12 Structural equation modeling

SEM allows the researcher to determine if the path coefficients between variables are

significant and if the proposed model is a good fit for the obtained data. Further,

direct and indirect pathways between variables can be explored, with the

complications of measurement error being taken into account (Baron & Kenny,

1986; Holmbeck et al., 2003).

SEM procedure (maximum likelihood method) is used in this study because this

approach permits modeling of a set of relations among constructs, simultaneous

estimation of all hypothesized paths, and estimation of indirect or mediating effects.

Additionally, in a structural model, SEM can simultaneously analyze the multiple

and interrelated relationships between each of the unobserved constructs (latent

variables) in one model, as well as consider measurement error in estimating the

structural coefficients to provide more precise estimation for the multi-item measures

(Byrne,2001; Tomarken & Waller, 2005).

SEM models have two major types of variables: latent variables (variables that are

not directly observed, but inferred from a set of variables that we do measure

including tests and surveys) and observed variables (set of measured or indicator

variables that are used to define the latent variables). Structural empowerment and

95

four types of organizational culture are latent exogenous variables in this study.

Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and psychological empowerment are

latent endogenous variables in this study. More specifically, they are dependent or

mediating variables that are predicted by one or other latent variables (Klem, 2000).

For the purposes of this study, constructs are the latent variables and their sub

dimensions. The indicator variables are the items on the structural empowerment

scale, clan culture, adhocracy culture, market culture, and hierarchy culture scales,

psychological empowerment scale, job satisfaction and organizational commitment

scales. The SEM model also includes parameters. Parameters indicate the direct

effects (e.g., the effect of an endogenous factor on a measured variable), as well as

the variances and covariances between variables within the model (Klem, 2000).

For this study, one model is used to test the 17 separate research questions and their

related hypotheses. However, before conducting any analysis, the model is assessed

for identification. This determines whether there is enough information in the sample

covariance to find unique estimates of the model parameters (Schumacker & Lomax,

2010). Only models that are identified can be estimated. A model is said to be

identified if there is a unique numerical solution for each of the parameters in the

model. First, the number data points and the number of parameters that are to be

estimated are counted. The number of data points is equal to the number of non-

redundant sample variances and co variances.

Number of data points=

Where is equal to the number measured variables.

96

The number of parameters is equal to the total number of regression coefficient,

variances and co-variances to be estimated. Therefore,

If there are more data points than parameters to be estimated, the model is an

over-identified model

If number of data points and parameters are equal, the model is a just-

identified model.

If there are fewer data points than parameters to be estimated, the model is

under-identified and parameters cannot be estimated. The number of

parameters needs to be reduced by constraining, or deleting some of them.

In this model there are 69 measured variables, so there are 2415 data points

(

). There are 207 parameters to be estimated in the hypothesized model: 99

regression coefficients, 99 variances, and 9 co-variances. The hypothesized model

has 2208 more data points than parameters to be estimated, so the model is over-

identified. Structural equation modeling contains two parts a measurement model and

a structural model.

3.13 Measurement model: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to examine the construct

validity, defined as “the extent to which a set of measured items actually reflects the

theoretical latent construct they are designed to measure” (Hair et al., 2006, p.776).

CFA provides measures of overall degree of fit and model specification, and also

examines the convergent and discriminant validity and composite reliability of model

(Bagozzi, Yi, & Philips, 1991). First-order and second-order CFA were conducted to

assess measurement of factor loading for items and removing the items that had

97

factor loading lower than .5. Second-order CFA regarding all dimensions of the

construct was done in order to examine convergent and discriminant validity and to

test construct validity of each construct.

3.13.1 CFA of Structural Empowerment

First-order CFA of Structural Empowerment

First–order CFA of each dimension of Structural empowerment (opportunity,

information, support, resources, formal power, and informal power) was conducted

to assess each construct’s factor loadings. As a rule of thumb, the item’s factor

loading should be at least .5 or higher (Hair et al, 2006). The result of an initial CFA

of 3-item measure of OPPORTUNITY dimension indicates that all standardized

regression weights (factor loadings) for three items in the OPPORTUNITY scale

exceeded the threshold level. The result of first-order CFA model for the three-item

measure of INFORMATION dimension showed that each items’ factor loadings are

all acceptable.

The first-order CFA for the three-item measure of SUPPORT indicated that all three

items achieved the ideal factor loadings. Conducting first-order CFA for other

dimensions of structural empowerment (three items RESOURCES, three items

FORMAL POWER and, four items INFORMAL POWER) showed that the factor

loadings of the items met the criteria (See Appendix C1).

Second-order CFA of Structural Empowerment

Based on the model of each dimension of structural empowerment in the first-order

CFA, the second-order CFA was conducted to assess model fit and validity of

structural empowerment. Figure 3.2 presents the second-order CFA in which

98

structural empowerment, consisting of six dimensions (namely, opportunity,

information, support, resources, formal power, and informal power) was modeled as

one construct. All regression weights were statistically significant at P < .001. Also,

all factor loadings exceeded the required level (> .5). Furthermore, the results

indicated that the fit indices obtained for the model were generally adequate (

99

STRUCTURAL

EMPOWERMENT

OPPORTUNITY

INFORMATION

SUPPORT

RESOURCES

FORMAL POWER

INFORMAL POWER

Sa2

e1

E2

e3

e4

e5

e8

e10

e12

e13

e14

e11

e7

e9

e6

e15

e16

e17

e18

e19

Sa1

Sa3

Sb1

Sb2

Sb3

Sc1

Sc2

Sc3

Sd1

Sd2

Sd3

Se1

Se2

Se3

Sf1

Sf2

Sf3

Sf4

RES

1

RES

2

RES

3

RES

4

RES

5

RES

6

.60

.58

.55

.70

.91

.91

.86

.93

.87

.68

.76

.69

.73

.58

.77

.65

.77

.83

.78

.86

.78

.86

.62

.94

.89

Figure 3.2. Second-order CFA of Structural Empowerment

100

3.13.2 CFA of Organizational Culture

First-order CFA of Organizational Culture

First–order CFA of organizational culture (clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy)

was conducted to assess each construct’s factor loadings. The result of first-order

CFA of six-item measure of CLAN culture revealed that all standardized regression

weights (factor loadings) for six items in CLAN scale reached the threshold level.

The result of first-order CFA model for the six-item measure of ADHOCRACY

dimension showed that each item’s factor loadings were all acceptable. The first-

order CFA for six-item measure of MARKET indicated that one item (cb3) had

factor loading of less than .5 and was deleted from the model. First-order CFA of

HIERARCHY showed that two items of the six items (cd4 and ca4) did not reach the

ideal level of factor loading and were deleted from the model (See Appendix C2).

Second-order CFA of Organizational Culture

After deleting the three items (cb3; cd4; and ca4) with factor loading of less than .5,

four constructs of organizational culture in the first-order CFA, and the second-order

CFA were conducted to assess model fit and validity of organizational culture.

Figure 3.3 shows the second-order CFA with four types of organizational culture

(namely. clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy) were modeled as one construct. All

regression weights were statistically significant at P < .001. Also, all factor loadings

exceeded the required level (> .5). Furthermore, the results indicated that the fit

indices obtained for the model were generally adequate (

.

101

Although the fit indices were generally acceptable, some criteria did not meet

appropriate levels in the baseline model. A series of modification process were

applied to the model to increase the model fit. Based on modification index, cb1’s

error (e2) covaried with ce1’s error (e5) term (M.I=17.738). This relationship

theoretically makes sense since cb1 and ce1 measure respectively organizational

leadership and strategic emphasis of clan culture in the research university context.

In other words, correlating these two items' errors demonstrates that participants

approached items in these two items in the same manner, and therefore, error in one

item is similar to the error in the other item.

ca2’s error (e7) co varied with cc2’s error (e9) term (M.I=19.444). This theoretically

makes sense since ca2 and cc2 measure respectively dominant characteristic and

management of academics of adhocracy culture. therefore, correlating these two

items' errors demonstrates that academics approached items in these two items in the

same manner, and therefore, error in one item is similar to the error in the other

item.ca3’s error (e13) covaried with ce3’s error (e16) term (M.I=20.229). This

relationship between errors also makes sense. Ca3 and ce3 measure respectively

dominant characteristic and strategic emphasis of hierarchical culture. Therefore, for

participants respond to these two items in the same manner and the errors become the

same.

The results of the respecified model show an enhanced fit. (

. Meanwhile, the

results reported that all regression weights were statistically significant (p <.001)

correlations between the constructs were also statistically significant (p <.001).

102

ORGANIZATIONAL

CULTURE

CLAN CULTURE

ADHOCRACY

CULTURE

MARKET

CULTURE

HIERARCHY

CULTURE

Cb1

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e8

e10

e12

e13

e14

e11

e7

e9

e6

e15

e18

e19

e20

e21

Ca1

Cc1

Cd1

Ce1

Cf1

Ca2

Cb2

Cc2

Cd2

Ce2

Cf2

Ca3

Cc3

Cd3

Cb4

Cc4

Ce4

Cf4

RES

2

RES

4

RES

5

.67

.88

.91

.81

.91

.81

.75

.83

.68

.69

.80

.62

.51

.56

.98

.98

.83

.81Ce3

Cf3

e16

e17

RES

3

.88

.59

.83

.80

.75

.79

.78

.34

.42

.26

3.13.3 CFA of Psychological Empowerment

Figure 3.3. Second-order CFA of Organizational Culture

103

3.13.4 CFA of Psychological Empowerment

First-order CFA of Psychological Empowerment

First–order CFA dimensions of psychological empowerment (decision making,

professional growth, status, self-efficacy, autonomy, and impact) were conducted to

assess each construct’s factor loadings. The result of an initial CFA of 10-item

measure of DECISION MAKING dimension indicated that all standardized

regression weights (factor loadings) met the criteria level (< .5). The result of first-

order CFA model for the six-item measure of PROFESSIONAL GROWTH

dimension showed that each item’s factor loadings were all acceptable.

The first-order CFA for six-item measure of STATUS indicated that two items

(EP28 and EP35) did not achieve the ideal factor loadings and for this reason were

removed from the model. Conducting first-order CFA for SELF-EFFICACY

dimension with six items showed that one item’s (EP 10) factor loadings did not

meet the criteria and was removed from the model. The result of the first-order CFA

model for the five-item measure of AUTONOMY dimension showed that one item’s

(EP 18) factor loadings did not meet the criteria and was removed from the model.

The first-order CFA for the six-item measure of IMPACT indicated that two items

(EP6 and EP19) did not achieve the ideal factor loadings and for this reason were

removed from the model (see Appendix C3).

Second-order CFA of Psychological Empowerment

After deleting the six items (EP28; EP35; EP10; EP18; EP6 and EP19) with factor

loading of less than .5, six constructs of psychological empowerment in the first-

order CFA, and the second-order CFA were conducted to assess model fit and

validity of psychological empowerment. Figure 3.4 shows the second-order CFA

104

with six dimensions of psychological empowerment (decision making, professional

growth, status, self-efficacy, autonomy, and impact) was modeled as one construct.

According to the model fit outcome, some criteria did not meet appropriate levels in

the baseline model. A series of modification processes was applied to the model to

increase the model fit.

Based on modification index, EP1’s error (e1) covaried with EP10’s error (e10) term

(M.I=24.994). EP13’s error (e2) co varied with EP20’s error (e3) term (M.I=41.387).

EP26’s error (e4) covaried with EP39’s error (e9) term (M.I=49.314). EP38’s error

(e8) covaried with EP1’s (e10) terms (M.I. =10.907). This relationship theoretically

makes sense since EP1, EP10, EP13, EP20, EP26, EP39 EP38, and EP1 items

measure decision making of academics dimension of psychological empowerment.

In other words, correlating these items' errors demonstrates that participants

approached these items in the same manner, and therefore, error in one item is

similar to the error in the other item.

EP8’s error (e12) covaried with EP27’s error (e15) term (M.I. =13.552). This

relationship theoretically makes sense since EP8 measures the level of professional

growth among academics and EP27 also measures professional growth by

concentrating on continuous learning of academics. Therefore, correlating these two

items' errors demonstrates that participants approached these items in the same

manner, and therefore, error in one item is similar to the error in the other item.

EP14’s error (e13) covaried with EP32’s error (e16) term (M.I. =12.319). The

relationship between errors of EP14 and EP32 theoretically makes sense since EP14

and EP32 both measure the opportunity that academics have regarding their

105

professional growth. Therefore, correlating these two items' errors demonstrates that

participants approached these items in the same manner, and therefore, error in one

item is similar to the error in the other item.

EP9’s error (e18) covaried with EP15’s error (e19) term (M.I. =12.599). This

relationship theoretically makes sense since EP9 and EP15 measure status of

academics among their colleagues. Therefore, correlating these two items' errors

demonstrates that participants approached these items in the same manner, and

therefore, error in one item is similar to the error in the other item. EP4’s error (e21)

covaried with EP16’s error (e22) term (M.I. =13.846). EP16’s error (e22) covaried

with EP33’s error (e25) term (M.I. =11.090). The correlation between errors of these

two items theoretically makes sense. EP4 and EP16 both ask about self-efficacy of

academic staffs in relation to their students. So, correlating these two items' errors

demonstrates error in one item is similar to the error in the other item. EP11’s error

(e27) covaried with EP17’s error (e28) term (M.I. =33.452). The relationship

between errors of EP11 and EP17 theoretically makes sense since EP11 and EP17

both measure the autonomy of academics in their teaching tasks. Therefore,

correlating these two items' errors demonstrates that participants approached these

items in the same manner, and therefore, error in one item is similar to the error in

the other item (Figure 3.4). The results of the respecified model show an enhanced fit

(

. However, the results reported that the model still did not fit properly. As the

model did not fit the second-order CFA for psychological empowerment construct,

item parceling was used.

106

PSYCHOLOGICAL

EMPOWERMENT

DECISION MAKING

PE7

PE13

PE20

PE34

PE1

PE39

PE38

PE36

PE26

PE31

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH

PE2

PE8

PE14

PE21

STATUS

PE3

PE9

PE15

PE22

SELF-EFFICACY

PE4

PE23

PE29

PE16

PE33

AUTONOMY

IMPACT

PE5

PE11

PE17

PE24

PE12

PE25

PE37

PE30

e11

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e12

e13

e14

e15PE27

e17

e18

e19

e20

e21

e22

e24

e23

e25

e29

e30

e31

e32

e33

e26

e28

e27

PE32 e16

.59

.71

.80

.62

.86

.63

.53

.59

.64

.74

.75

.70

.45

.79

.66

.69

.57

.62

.58

.78

.56

.74

.56

.62

.63

.66

.56

.51

.54

.63

.58

.59

.73

.91

.94

.86

.98

.93

.87

RES1

RES2

RES3

RES4

RES5

RES6

.33

.45

.47

.30

.28

.34

.26

.29

.28

.43

Figure 3.4. Second-order CFA of Psychological Empowerment

107

Partial Disaggregation (Item Parceling)

Decision making was done with 10 items divided into three components: Items

EP34, EP26, EP39, and EP36 for parcel DC1 items; items EP38, EP1, and EP13 for

parcel DC2, and items EP7; EP31 and EP20 for parcel DC3. Professional growth

with six items was divided into two components: items EP14 and EP21; EP27 for

parcel PG1; items EP32, EP8, and EP2 for parcel PG2. Status with four items was

divided into two components: items EP3 and EP9 for parcel ST1; items EP15 and

EP22 for parcel ST2.

Self-efficacy with five items was divided into two components: items EP33, EP4 and

EP29 for parcel ST1; items EP16 and EP23 for parcel ST2. Autonomy with four

items was divided into two components: items EP24 and EP5 for parcel SS1; items

EP17 and EP11 for parcel SS2. Impact with four items was divided into two

components: items EP12 and EP30 for parcel IM1; items EP25 and EP37 for parcel

IM2 (see Figure 3.5). The results of the respecified model by item parceling showed

an enhanced fit (

.

3.13.5 CFA of Job Satisfaction

First-order CFA of Job Satisfaction

First–order CFA of nine dimensions of job satisfaction (pay, promotion, supervision,

fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work

and communication) were conducted to assess each construct’s factor loadings. The

result of an initial CFA of four-item measure of PAY dimension indicated that all

108

standardized regression weights (factor loadings) for four items in the PAY scale

exceeded the threshold level.

The result of first-order CFA model for the four-item measure of PROMOTION

dimension showed that one item’s factor loadings (J2) were not acceptable. The first-

order CFA for the four-item measure of SUPERVISION indicated that all four items

achieved the ideal factor loadings. Conducting first-order CFA for the four-item

measure of FRINGE BENEFITS showed that the factor loadings of the items met the

criteria. The result of an initial CFA of four-item measure of CONTINGENT

REWARDS dimension indicated that all factor loadings for the four items in

CONTINGENT REWARDS scale exceeded the threshold level.

Conducting first-order CFA for the four-item measure of OPERATING

CONDITIONS showed that the factor loadings of the items met the criteria.

Conducting first-order CFA for the four-item measure of CO-WORKERS showed

that for one item (J34), factor loading did not meet the criteria and was removed.

First-order CFA for the four-Item measure of NATURE OF WORK showed that for

one item (J35), factor loading did not reach the appropriate level and was removed.

The result of an initial CFA of the four-item measure of COMMINUCATION

dimension indicated that all factor loadings exceeded the threshold level (see

Appendix C4).

109

PSYCHOLOGICAL

EMPOWERMENT

DECISION MAKING

DC3

DC1

DC2

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH

PG1

PG2

STATUS

ST1

ST2

SELF-EFFICACY

SS2

SS1

AUTONOMY

IMPACT

AU1

AU2

IM1

IM2

e4

e5

e6

e12

e13

e18

e19

e22

e23

e31

e32

e28

e27

.96

.75

.88

.86

.82

.67

.86

.67

.86

.69

.71

.77

.76

.88

.97

.84

.93

.88

.94

RES1

RES2

RES3

RES4

RES5

RES6

Figure 3.5. Second- order CFA of Psychological Empowerment (Aggregation)

110

Second-order CFA of Job Satisfaction

After deleting the three items with factor loading of less than .5, nine constructs of

job satisfaction in the first-order CFA, and the second-order CFA were conducted to

assess model fit and validity of job satisfaction. Figure 3.6 shows the second-order

CFA with nine dimensions of job satisfaction (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe

benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work and

communication) was modeled as one construct. According to the model fit outcome,

fit indices did not meet appropriate levels in the baseline model. A series of

modification processes was applied to the model to increase the model fit.

Based on modification index, J10’s error (e2) covaried with J19’s error (e3) term

(M.I=40.100). J10’s error (e2) co varied with J28’s error (e4) term (M.I=10.515).

The relationship between errors of J10 and J19 theoretically makes sense since J10

and J19 both measure the level of academics satisfaction by asking about the amount

of payment and both items are negative items. Therefore, correlating these two items'

errors demonstrates that participants approached these items in the same manner, and

therefore, error in one item is similar to the error in the other item.

J24’s error (e23) covaried with J31’s error (e24) term (M.I. =23.393). This

relationship theoretically makes sense since J24 and J31 measure the level of job

satisfaction among academics regarding work over load in the university they work.

Therefore, correlating these two items' errors demonstrates that participants


similar to the error in the other item.

111

J16’s error (e26) covaried with J34’s error (e28) term (M.I. =17.274). This

relationship theoretically makes sense since J16 and J34 measure the level of job

satisfaction among academics in relation to their colleagues and other people in the

university. Therefore, correlating these two items' errors demonstrates that

participants approached these items in the same manner, and therefore, error in one

item is similar to the error in the other item. The results of the respecified model

showed an enhanced fit (see Figure 3.6). (

. However, the results reported that

still the model did not fit properly. As the model did not fit the second-order CFA for

job satisfaction construct, item parceling was used.

3.13.6 Partial Disaggregation (Item Parceling)

As each dimension of job satisfaction variable contains only four items, so for partial

aggregation. Uni-dimensional parcel method cannot be conducted for these

measurement scales. Each parcel should contain three or more items. So, for partial

aggregation, multi-dimensional parcel method was done for this construct. In

homogenous parceling, each parcel is made up of items that load on the same first-

order factor. Each parcel contains items from the same dimensions.

Four Items (J1, J10, J19, J28) of PAY were summed up into the parcel. Three Items

(J11, J20, J33) of PROMOTION were averaged up to one parcel. SUPERVISION

with four items (J3, J12, J21, J30) was summed up and transferred to a parcel. Four

Items (J4, J13, J22, J29) of FRINGE BENEFITS were summed up into the parcel.

Four Items (J5, J14, J23, J32) of CONTINGENT REWARDS were averaged up to

one parcel.

112

OPERATING CONDITIONS with four items (6 J15, J24, and J31) were summed up

and transferred to a parcel. Four Items (J7, J16, J25, J34) of CO-WORKERS were

summed up into the parcel. Three Items (J11, J17, J27) of NATURE OF WORK

were averaged up to one parcel. COMMINUCATION with three items (J9, J18, and

J26), were summed up and transferred to a parcel. Factor loadings for four parcels

(operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work, and supervision) did not meet the

criteria and were removed from the model. Factor loadings for supervision, operating

conditions, co-workers, and nature of work did not meet the appropriate criteria.

113

JOB

SATISFACTION

PAY

J1

J10

J19

J11

J3

J33

J20

J28

SUPERVISION

J12

J21

J30

J4

FRIDGE BENEFITS

J29

J5

J23CONTIGENT

REWARDS

J32

J6

J15

J14

J24

COWORKERS

NATURE OF

WORK

J31

J7

J16

J25

J8

J27

J17

e9

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e10

e11

e12

e13J13

e15

e16

e17

e18

e19

e21

e20

e22

e25

e26

e28

e29

e30

e23

e24

J22 e14

.55

.69

.49

.75

.47

.75

.60

.54

.72

.50

.78

.56

.27

.25

.21

RES1

RES3

RES4

RES5

RES7

RES8

PROMOTION

RES2

OPERATING

CONDITIONS

RES6

J34 e27

COMMINUCATION

J18

J9

e31

e32

RES9

J26 e33

.83

.55

.98

.65

-.11

.43

.36

.31

.76

.52

.76

.57

.59

.63

.52

.53

.67

.75

.69

.94

.90

.52

.72

.52

.76

.82

.64

.61

.74

.54

.76

Figure 3.6. Second-order CFA of Job Satisfaction

114

JOB SATISFATION

PAY

PROMOTION

FRINGE BENEFITS

CONTINGENT REWARDS

COMMINUCATION

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

.84

.69

.86

.81

.55

Figure 3.7. Second-order CFA of Job Satisfaction (Respecified Model)

Therefore, these four dimensions were removed from the model. The results of the

respecified model by item parceling showed an enhanced fit (see Figure 3.7).The last

model fit based on the data is

.

3.13.7 CFA of Organizational Commitment

First-order CFA of Organizational Commitment

First–order CFA of three dimensions of organizational commitment (normative

commitment, affective commitment, and continuance commitment) was conducted to

assess each constructs’ factor loadings. The result of an initial CFA of six-item

115

measure of NORMATIVE COMMITMENT dimension indicated that all

standardized regression weights (factor loadings) for six items of NORMATIVE

COMMITMENT in scale exceeded the threshold level.

The result of first-order CFA model for the six-item measure of AFFECTIVE

COMMITMENT dimension showed that one item’s factor loading (O11) was not

acceptable and thus removed. The first-order CFA for a six-item measure of

CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT indicated that none of the six items (O1, O4, O7,

O9, O14, O17) achieved the ideal factor loadings and deleted (see Appendix C5).

Second-order CFA of Organizational Commitment

After deleting the 7 items with factor loading less than .5, 3 constructs of

organizational commitment in the first-order CFA, the second-order CFA were

conducted to assess model fit and validity of organizational commitment. Figure 3.8

showed the second-order CFA with three dimensions of organizational commitment

(affective, normative and continuance commitment) was modeled as one construct.

According to the model fit outcome, fit indices did not meet appropriate levels in the

baseline model.

A series of modification process were applied to the model to increase the model fit.

Based on modification index, O13’s error (e8) covaried with O18’s error (e10) term

(M.I=12.701). The relationship between errors of O13 and O18 theoretically makes

sense since O13 and O18 both measure the level of academics normative

commitment by asking about their loyalty in their work place Therefore, correlating

these two items' errors demonstrates that participants approached these items in the

same manner, and therefore, error in one item is similar to the error in the other item.

116

O2’s error (e7) co varied with O18’s error (e10) term (M.I=14.065). The relationship

between errors of O2 and O18 theoretically makes sense since O2 and O18 both

measure the level of academics normative commitment Therefore, correlating these

two items' errors demonstrates that participants approached these items in the same


O10’s error (e4) covaried with O16’s error (e6) term (M.I =20.564). The relationship


measure the level of academics affective commitment. Therefore, correlating these

two items' errors demonstrates that participants approached these items in the same


O8’s error (e3) covaried with O10’s error (e4) term (M.I=11.064). The relationship


measure emotional attachment of academics in their departments. Therefore,

correlating these two items' errors demonstrates that participants approached these

items in the same manner, and therefore, error in one item is similar to the error in

the other item.

O6’s error (e2) covaried with O10’s error (e4) and term (M.I=15.012). The

relationship between errors of O10 and O16 theoretically makes sense since O6 and

O10 both measure affective commitment of academics towards their departments.

Therefore, correlating these two items' errors demonstrates that participants


similar to the error in the other item (see Figure 4.8). The results of the respecified

117

model show an enhanced fit (

) the results report that the model fit properly.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT

NORMATIVECOMMITMENT

RES1

RES2

O3

O6

O8

O10

O12

O16

O2

O13

O15

O18

O5

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

.25

.17

-.35

.26

-.22

.97

.98

.62

.57

.63

.69

.68

.63

.61

.58

.68

.54

.51

Figure 3.8. Second-order CFA of Organizational Commitment

Structural model

The structural model deals with the relationships between latent variables only. SEM

is used to look at path coefficients among the variables. Goodness-of-fit indices are

generated to determine the overall fit of the model to the data (Arbuckle, 2006).

Goodness of fit indicates how well the specified model reproduces the co-variance

matrix among the indicator items. For this study, chi squares ( ), ratio of to the

118

degree of freedom, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the goodness of Fit Index (GFI)

and Incremental Fit Index (IFI) are utilized to determine goodness of fit. These

indices range from 0 to 1.00, with values closer to 1.00 (usually above .90) being

indicative of good model fit. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) is also utilized. A RMSEA coefficient of .08 is normally taken as

indicative of satisfactory model fit, but <.10 is acceptable (Hair et al., 2006).

Modification indices

Modification indices are also generated that suggest new paths and parameter

relationships. These modifications are considered in this study to improve the fit of

the model for the data (Klem, 2000). It is rare that a model fits well at first.

Sometimes model modification is required to obtain a better-fitting model. AMOS

allows for the use of modification indices to generate the expected reduction in the

overall model fit chi-square for each possible path that can be added to the model.

The Threshold for Modification Indices specifies what level of chi-square change is

required for a path to be included in the modification index output.

Item parceling (Aggregation)

Item parceling is used when the total number of indicators for a latent construct is

difficult to manage (involves lengthy scale). Parcels refer to aggregation (sums or

average) of several individual items (Coffman & MacCallum, 2005). The individual

indicators used to represent latent variables are parceled by summing up or averaging

up several individual indicators and then the scores on the parcels as indicators for

the latent variable analysis (Hair et al, 2006). There are three levels of data

aggregation of latent variable indicators.

119

Total disaggregation: when each item serves as an indicator for a

construct.

Partial disaggregation: when several items are summed up or averaged

resulting in several parcels for a construct.

Total aggregation: when all of the items for a scale are summed up or

averaged.

Partial aggregation was conducted based on uni-dimentional parcels method, to allow

the reduction in the number of measured variables in this model. Model with parcels

as indicators tend to fit better than model with items as indicators, because the order

of parcel correlation matrix is much smaller than the order of the item correlation

matrix (Coffman & MacCallum, 2005).

Bagozzi and Heatherton (1994) suggested between five to seven items that can be

randomly divided into two dimensions for components for partial disaggregation. If

there are more than nine items, there could be three or more components. In this

method for each construct one factor model to the all items is fitted. According to the

factor loadings the items are ranked and then, items were assigned to parcels to

equate the average loadings of each parcel on each factor.

Nested model comparison

Nested model comparisons work by imposing a constraint or set of multiple

constraints on a starting or less restricted model to obtain a more restricted final

model. The nested model comparisons provide a powerful tool to test competing

structural equation (and related) models.

120

Bootstrapping

The Bootstrap section of the output contains the mean of the parameter estimates

from the multiple bootstrap samples. Bootstrapping is to examine significant of path

coefficients (To obtain the test of significance for the indirect effect) and its values.

Bootstrapping is to check the normality of sampling distributions of the total and

specific indirect effects; so, it is reasonable to expect the sampling distribution to be

approximately normal. In particular, the bootstrap can be used to find approximate

standard errors (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

3.14 Summary

This chapter delineated the design of research, population sampling, data collection

procedures measurement and instrument. In addition, threats to validity and

reliability is identified .and the data analysis procedure is also addressed. The data

analyses and the results of hypotheses testing are presented in Chapter Four.

Table 3.8. Summary of objectives, hypotheses and statistics use

Objectives Hypotheses Statistics used

To determine the effect of

structural empowerment

on job satisfaction as

mediated by psychological

empowerment.

Psychological

empowerment mediates

the relationship between


and job satisfaction.

Structural equation

modeling (SEM);

Mediation effect based on

Baron and Kenny

approach(1986)



on organizational

commitment as mediated

by psychological

empowerment.

Psychological




and organizational

commitment.

Structural equation

modeling (SEM);


Baron and Kenny

approach(1986)


organizational culture on

job satisfaction as

mediated by psychological

empowerment.

Psychological



organizational culture and

job satisfaction.

Structural equation

modeling (SEM);


Baron and Kenny

approach(1986)


organizational culture on

Psychological


Structural equation

modeling (SEM);

121

organizational

commitment as mediated

by psychological

empowerment.


organizational culture and

organizational

commitment.


Baron and Kenny

approach(1986)

CHAPTER 4

4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the study analysis in chapter 3. In particular, this

chapter presents study reports descriptive statistics, which focus on the psychometric

properties of the variables used for the analysis in this research. Meanwhile,

assumption of normality, outliers and multicollinearity were checked. Second, the

results of structural equation modeling (SEM) are presented. SEM, analysis was done

by AMOS software in order to show the measurement model (first and second order

confirmatory factor analysis) and structural model. The results of confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA), which verify the proposed factor structure and test the construct

validity, are reported. To support appropriate reliability and validity, convergent and

discriminant validity, and composite reliability and Cronbach alpha are checked.

Finally, the structural model is used to test research hypotheses that were identified

in Chapter 1.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

From a total 400 questionnaires that initially were distributed to the participants, 260

usable data sets were returned for an overall rate of 65%. Mean standard deviation

and reliabilities were analyzed by using SPSS version 15. Demographic information

of the 260 academics is presented in Table 4.1. The majority (53%) of respondents

122

were female, and slightly less than half (47%) of the respondents were male Also,

participants were asked to provide information regarding their age, and length of

experience in their current university. The response for age was 43 years (SD=8.07),

and their work experience within their current department was 12 years (SD=7.83),

and 29 hours (SD=16.06) in a week. Personal annual net income was RM71200 and

family annual net income was RM115400. Most of the respondents (43.5%) have

senior lecturer positions.

Table 4.1. Mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentage of demographic

characteristics of academic staff

Frequency Percentage Mean SD

Gender

Male 122 47

Female 138 53

Age (years) 43 8.07

26-36 75 28.7

37-46 107 41.3

47-65 78 30.0

Work experience 12 7.83

Work hour/Week 29 16.06

University

UPM

UKM

UM

USM

58

58

88

56

22.2

22.2

33.9

21.7

Position/Rank held

Professor

Associate professor

Senior lecturer

lecture

15

52

113

80

5.7

20.0

43.5

30.9

Total 260 100

Table 4.2 shows mean, standard deviation, and reliability values (Cronbach’s alpha)

for all variables. Most of the scales had reliabilities around 0.8 or higher, and none

are below 0.7.

123

Table 4.2. Mean, Standard deviation and reliability of measurement variables

Instrument Mean SD Score

Range

Cronbach’s

alpha

CWEQ

Opportunity 5.28 0.88 1-7 .912

Information 4.48 1.36 1-7 .873

Support 4.59 1.31 1-7 .911

Resources 4.64 1.11 1-7 .853

Formal power 4.60 1.14 1-7 .841

Informal power 4.55 1.16 1-7 .843

Total structural empowerment 28.14 5.82 6-42 .907

OCAI

Clan 4.29 1.16 1-7 .865

Market 4.23 1.03 1-7 .818

Adhocracy 4.21 1.04 1-7 .810

Hierarchy 4.59 0.76 1-7 .716

Total Organizational Culture 17.32 3.58 4-28 .939

FPES

Decision Making 4.38 1.04 1-7 .899

Professional Growth 5.00 0.94 1-7 .862

Status 5.47 0.60 1-7 .878

Self-efficacy 5.46 0.69 1-7 .892

Autonomy 5.11 0.82 1-7 .865

Impact 5.16 0.69 1-7 .856

Total Psychological

Empowerment

32.64 4.59 6-42 .975

JSS

Pay 3.03 1.05 1-7 .793

Promotion 3.00 0.92 1-7 .704

Supervision 4.91 1.21 1-7 .758

Fringe benefits 3.59 1.17 1-7 .708

Contingent rewards 2.80 0.86 1-7 .727

Operating conditions 4.73 1.11 1-7 .903

Coworkers 4.86 0.97 1-7 .751

Nature of work 3.36 1.08 1-7 .786

Communication 4.39 1.13 1-7 .719

Total job satisfaction 34.67 6.03 9-63 .885

OCQ

Affective commitment 4.78 1.10 1-7 .703

Normative commitment 4.56 0.94 1-7 .755

Continuance commitment 4.48 0.82 1-7 .827

124

Total organizational commitment 13.82 2.49 3-21 .852

4.2.1 Distribution of level of structural empowerment

The overall mean of structural empowerment is 28.14 with SD of 5.82. The level of

structural empowerment is divided in to three levels, namely low, moderate and high

based on the scales. The result as a whole showed that majority of academics

(54.6%) practice moderate level of structural empowerment and (40.8%) of

academics have high level of structural empowerment. Few academics (4.6%)

practice low level of structural empowerment.

Table 4.3. Frequency, mean and SD of structural empowerment

Variable Frequency Percent Mean SD

28.14 5.82 Low 12 4.6 Moderate 142 54.6 High 106 40.8

4.2.2 Distribution of level of psychological empowerment

The overall mean of psychological empowerment is 32.64 with SD of 4.59. The level

of psychological empowerment is divided in to three levels, namely low, moderate

and high based on the scales. The result as a whole showed that majority of

academics (54.2%) practice high level of psychological empowerment and (44.6%)

of academics have moderate level of psychological empowerment. Few academics

(1.2%) practice low level of psychological empowerment.

Table 4.4. Frequency, mean and SD of psychological empowerment



125

4.2.3 Distribution of level of job satisfaction

The overall mean of job satisfaction is 34.67 with SD of 6.03. The level of job

satisfaction is divided in to three levels, namely low, moderate and high based on the

scales. The result as a whole showed that majority of academics (80.8%) practice

moderate level of job satisfaction and (14.2%) of academics have high level of job

satisfaction. Few academics (5%) practice low level of job satisfaction.

Table 4.5. Frequency, mean and SD of job satisfaction


34.67 6.03 Low 13 5 Moderate 210 80.8 High 37 14.2

4.2.4 Distribution of level of organizational commitment

The overall mean of organizational commitment is 13.82 with SD of 2.49. The level

of organizational commitment is divided in to three levels, namely low, moderate

and high based on the scales. The result as a whole showed that majority of

academics (69.9%) practice moderate level of organizational commitment and

(22.7%) of academics have high level of organizational commitment. Few academics

(7.4%) practice low level of organizational commitment.

Table 4.6. Frequency, mean and SD of organizational commitment



126

4.2.5 Organizational culture profile

The mean scores of cultural alternatives (A=Clan, B=Adhocracy, C=Market,

D=Hierarchy) presented in Figure 4.1 is illustrated on a four-quadrant plot (Figure

3). Based on the descriptive analysis the result shows that hierarchy (M=4.59;

SD=0.76) is dominant organizational culture.

Figure 4.1. Organizational Culture Profile Plot

Note: A = Clan; B = Adhocracy; C = Market; D = Hierarchy

4.3 Assumption Check

Several assumptions for structural equation modeling were checked, including

missing values, multivariate normality, outliers, and multicollinearity.

Extern

al F

ocu

s an

d D

ifferentia

tion

Inte

rnal

Focu

s an

d I

nte

gra

tion

Flexibility and Discretion

Stability and Control

A B

D C

127

Missing Values

Data imputation was done by AMOS software, in order to treat missing values.

Imputation is a process of estimating missing value based on valid values of other

variables and/or cases in the sample. The purpose is to employ known relationships

identified in the valid values of the sample to assist in estimating the missing values.

In this study, maximum likelihood approach was done for missing data imputation.

Multivariate Normality

The assumption of normality was tested by examining the level of skewness and

kurtosis of the frequency or descriptive data of major variables (Byrne, 2010; Kline,

2005). Byrne (2010) following, West, Finch and Curran (1995) suggests a kurtosis

value equal or greater than 7 is indicative of early departure from normality.

Meanwhile a skewness value of less than 2 is acceptable (Kline, 2005). The level of

skewness and kurtosis were checked and they were within the acceptable range (See

Appendix B1).

Outliers

Mahalanobis distance ( ) measures the distance in standard deviation units between

a set of scores for one case and the sample mean (centroid). An outlier case has a

value that stands distinctively apart from all other values (Byrne, 2010).

Checking the level of significance

⁄ value exceeding 2.5 in small samples can

be considered as a possible outlier (Hair et al, 2010). The result showed that there is

not any outlier (See Appendix B2).

128

Multicollinearity

The assumption of multicollinearity was checked by examining correlation

coefficients, which describe the strength of the relationship between two latent

variables (Hair et al., 2006). Multicollinearity was observed between two predictors,

market and adhocracy culture. In order to solve the error of multicollinearity, two

variables were combined with variable.

Table 4.7. Multicollinearity

Latent construct Correlation coefficient

Structural Empowerment Clan culture .78

Structural Empowerment Adhocracy culture .75

Structural Empowerment Market culture .73

Structural Empowerment Hierarchy culture .78

Structural Empowerment Psychological Empowerment .77

Structural Empowerment Organizational Commitment .67

Structural Empowerment Job Satisfaction .60

Clan Culture Psychological Empowerment .70

Clan Culture Organizational Commitment .66

Clan Culture Job Satisfaction .58

Adhocracy Culture Psychological Empowerment .71

Adhocracy Culture Organizational Commitment .70

Adhocracy Culture Job Satisfaction .48

Market Culture Psychological Empowerment .64

Market Culture Organizational Commitment .49

Market Culture Job Satisfaction .36

Hierarchy Culture Psychological Empowerment .71

Hierarchy Culture Organizational Commitment .60

Hierarchy Culture Job Satisfaction .61

Psychological Empowerment Organizational Commitment .56

129


Psychological Empowerment Job Satisfaction .58

Organizational Commitment Job Satisfaction .71

Clan Culture Adhocracy Culture .78

Adhocracy Culture Market Culture .88

Market Culture Hierarchy Culture .72

Clan Culture Market Culture .76

Clan Culture Hierarchy Culture .78

Adhocracy Culture Hierarchy Culture .79

Multicollinearity was observed between two predictors, market and adhocracy

culture. In order to solve the error of multicollinearity, two variables were combined

with one variable and called adhocracy culture (see Table 4.8).

Table 4.8. Multicollinearity


Structural Empowerment Clan culture .74

Structural Empowerment Adhocracy culture .76

Structural Empowerment Hierarchy culture .79

Structural Empowerment Psychological Empowerment .73

Structural Empowerment Organizational Commitment .64

Structural Empowerment Job Satisfaction .48

Clan Culture Psychological Empowerment .70

Clan Culture Organizational Commitment .65

Clan Culture Job Satisfaction .47

Adhocracy Culture Psychological Empowerment .71

Adhocracy Culture Organizational Commitment .64

Adhocracy Culture Job Satisfaction .63

Hierarchy Culture Psychological Empowerment .74

Hierarchy Culture Organizational Commitment .62

130


Hierarchy Culture Job Satisfaction .61

Psychological Empowerment Organizational Commitment .58

Psychological Empowerment Job Satisfaction .50

Organizational Commitment Job Satisfaction .60

Clan Culture Adhocracy Culture .76

Clan Culture Hierarchy Culture .78

Adhocracy Culture Hierarchy Culture .78

For further analysis, the following section presents the results of confirmatory factor

analysis conducted to verify the construct validity of the scales used in this study.

4.4 Total Model: Evaluation of Measurement Model

The measurement model for this study contains baseline model and respecified

model.

4.4.1 Baseline Model

All factor loadings met the criteria ( >.5) and all observed indicators and first-order

constructs loaded significantly on their first-order constructs and second-order

constructs, respectively (p < .001). The results showed that model fit indices were

not consistent with a good model fit, and values were not acceptable (

).

4.4.2 Respecified Model

The result of the measurement model showed that the model fit was not achieved,

and therefore, item parceling was conducted in order to achieve the model fit. This

study employed a two-step procedure involving confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

and structural equation modeling (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Given the small

131

sample size relative to the measurement items, we used item parcels rather than

individual items as manifest indicators of the latent constructs in order to maintain an

adequate sample-size-to-parameter ratio (Bentler & Chou, 1988; Bandalo, 2002;

Matsunaga, 2008).

Structural Empowerment

Structural empowerment was analyzed with six dimensions: three items of (Sa1, Sa2,

Sa3) summed up and parceled to opportunity observed variable; three items of (Sb1,

Sb2, Sb3) summed up and parceled to information observed variable three items of

(Sc1, Sc2, Sc3) summed up and parceled to support observed variables; three items

of (Sd1, Sd2, Sd3) related to resources dimension, summed up and parceled to

observed variables and resources. Three items of (Se1, Se2, and Se3) summed up and

parceled to observed variables, formal power; four items related to informal power

dimension, summed up and averaged to formal power observed variable. Generally

speaking, structural empowerment construct contained six observed variables:

opportunity, information, support, resources, formal power and informal power.

Organizational Culture

Clan culture with its six items (Ca1, Cb1, Cc1, Cd1, Ce1, Cf1) remained without

change in the model. Adhocracy and market culture were combined to reduce

multicollinearity and called adhocracy culture. In order to have better model fit, item

parceling was done on this construct. Twelve items of adhocracy culture (Cb2, Cd3,

Ca2); (Cd2, Cc3, Ce2); (Cf2, Cf3, Ce3) were summed up and parceled to three

observed variables: adhoc1, adhoc2 and adhoc3. Hierarchy culture with four items

132

(Cb4, Cc4, Ce4, and Cf4) remained with the model. Therefore, three constructs of

culture represent the organizational culture.

Psychological Empowerment

Psychological empowerment construct contains six dimensions. Homogenous item

parceling was done for each dimension. Ten items of decision making dimension

(EP1, EP7, EP13, EP20, EP26, EP31, EP34, EP36, EP39, and EP39) were summed

up and parceled to observe variable decision making. Six items of professional

growth (EP2, EP8, EP14, EP21, EP27, and EP32) were summed up and parceled to

professional growth observed variable. Four items of status (EP5, EP9, EP15, and

EP22) were summed up and parceled to observed variable: status.

In order to achieve a parcel for self-efficacy, five items (EP4, EP16, EP23, EP29,

EP33) were summed up and parceled to an observed variable, namely; self-efficacy.

Four items (EP5, EP11, EP17, EP24) of autonomy were summed up and parceled to

observed variable, autonomy. Impact dimension with four items (EP12, EP25, EP30,

EP37) was summed up and parceled to the observed variable, namely, impact.

Therefore, psychological empowerment construct contains six observed variables,

namely, decision making, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, autonomy, and

impact.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction contains five observed variables, namely, pay, promotion, fringe

benefits, contingent rewards, and communication and remained without change in

the model.

133

Organizational Commitment

Organizational culture contains two dimensions of affective and normative

commitment. Six items (O3, O6, O8, O10, O12, O16) of affective commitment were

summed up and parceled to an observed variable, namely affective commitment.

Five items (O2, O5, O13, O15, O18) of normative commitment were summed up and

parceled to the observed variable, normative commitment. The conclusion is that

organizational commitment contains two observed variables namely, affective and

normative commitment.

4.4.3 Respecified model fit

Figure 4.2 shows a better model fit.

).

134

STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT

CLAN CULTURE

ADHOCRACY CULTURE


PSYCHOLOGICALEMPOWERMENT

HIERARCHY CULTURE

OPPORTUNITY

INFORMATION

SUPPORT

RESOURCES

FORMAL POWER

INFORMAL POWER

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

CLAN ITEM1(Ca1)

CLAN ITEM2(Cb1)

CLAN ITEM3(Cc1)

CLAN ITEM4(Cd1)

CLANITEM 5(Ce1)

CLAN ITEM6(Cf1)

ADHOCRACY 1

ADHOCRACY 2

ADHOCRACY 3

HIERARCHY ITEM2(Cb4)

HIERARCHY ITEM3(Cc4)

HIERARCHY ITEM5(Ce4)

HIERARCHY ITEM6(Cf4)

DECISION MAKING

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH

STATUS

AUTONOMY

IMPACT

SELF-EFFICACY


NORMATIVE COMMITMENT

PAY

PROMOTION

FRINGE BENEFITS

COMMINUCATION

CONTIGENT REWARDS

JOB SATISFACTION

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e12

e16

e17

e18

e24

e25

e26

e27

e28

e29

e30

e31

e32

e33

e34

e35

e36

e37

e38

e39

e40

.67

.75

.84

.54

.79.82

.66

.85

.92

.86

.90

.81

.89

.90

.91

.79

.66

.59

.56

.83

.89

.75

.79

.72

.87

.73

.95

.52

.56

.58

.69

.69

.48

.65

.73

.79

.76

.74

.76

.79

.70

.65

.46

.78

.71

.65

.63

.74

.62

.51

.59

.50

.60

Figure 4.2. Measurement Model (respecified model)

135

4.5 Reliability

4.5.1 Composite reliability

Composite reliability measures the internal consistency of the latent construct (Kline,

2005; Hair et al., 2006). By internal consistency, a better estimate can be obtained

using the composite reliability formula.

Table 4.9. Composite reliability

Latent construct Composite reliability

Structural empowerment (.918)

Clan culture (.933)

Adhocracy culture (.950)

Hierarchy culture (.904)

Psychological empowerment (.927)

Job satisfaction (.846)

Organizational commitment (.850)

According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham (2006), CR equal to or more

than .7 has adequate composite reliability. Therefore, as a rule of thumb, all five

latent variables have adequate composite reliability (Table 4.9).

4.6 Validity

4.6.1 Convergent validity

Convergent validity measured by average variance is extracted. A high AVE (greater

than .5) shows that the latent variables have high convergent validity (Fornell &

Larcker, 1981). According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, (2006), AVE

equal to or more than .5 has adequate convergent validity. Therefore, as a rule of

thumb, all five latent variables have adequate convergence (Table 4.10).

136

Table 4.10. Convergent validity

Latent construct Average variance extracted Structural empowerment (.65)

Clan culture (.70)

Adhocracy culture (.63)

Hierarchy culture (.70)

Psychological empowerment (.68)

Job satisfaction (.52)

Organizational commitment (.74)

4.6.2 Discriminant validity

Discriminant validity is determined by examining whether the AVE for each

construct is greater than the squared correlations (shared variance) between the

construct and all other constructs in the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al.,

2006; Farrell, 2010).

Table 4.11. Estimation of squared correlation

Latent construct Estimate Squared correlation

SE clan .74 .54

SE PE .73 .53

SE COM .65 .42

SE JS .48 .23

clan PE .70 .49

clan COM .64 .41

clan JS .46 .21

PE COM .58 .34

PE JS .50 .25

COM JS .60 .36

Clan adhocracy .76 .58

adhocracy hierarchy .78 .61

PE hierarchy .74 .54

137

Latent construct Estimate Squared correlation

PE adhocracy .71 .50

Clan hierarchy .78 .60

SE adhocracy .76 .57

SE hierarchy .79 .62

JS adhocracy .63 .39

COM adhocracy .64 .40

JS hierarchy .51 .26

COM hierarchy .62 .38

Based on rule of thumb, AVE for each construct must be bigger than the shared

variance of other constructs. AVE for structural empowerment (.65) is bigger than

shared variance of structural empowerment with clan culture (.54), adhocracy culture

(.57), hierarchy culture (.62), psychological empowerment (.53), job satisfaction

(.36), and organizational commitment (.44). AVE for Clan culture (.70) is bigger

than shared variance of clan culture with structural empowerment (.54), adhocracy

(.58), hierarchy (.60), psychological empowerment (.49), job satisfaction (.33), and

organizational commitment (.43).

Table 4.12. Discriminate validity

Latent construct SE CL AD HI PE JS COM

Structural empowerment (.65) .54 .57 .62 .53 .36 .44

Clan culture .74 (.70) .58 .60 .49 .33 .43

Adhocracy culture .76 .76 (.63) .61 .50 .39 .40

Hierarchy culture .79 .78 .78 (.70) .54 .26 .38

Psychological empowerment .73 .70 .71 .74 (.68) .33 .31

Job satisfaction .60 .58 .63 .51 .58 (.52) .50

Organizational commitment .67 .66 .64 .62 .56 .71 (.74)

Based on rule of thumb, AVE for each construct must be bigger than the shared

variance of other constructs. AVE for structural empowerment (.65) is bigger than

138

shared variance of structural empowerment with clan culture (.54), adhocracy culture

(.57), hierarchy culture (.62), psychological empowerment (.53), job satisfaction

(.36), and organizational commitment (.44). AVE for Clan culture (.70) is bigger

than shared variance of clan culture with structural empowerment (.54), adhocracy

(.58), hierarchy (.60), psychological empowerment (.49), job satisfaction (.33), and


AVE for adhocracy culture (.63) is bigger than the shared variance of adhocracy

culture with structural empowerment (.57), clan culture (.58), hierarchy culture (.61),

psychological empowerment (.50), job satisfaction (.39), and organizational

commitment (.40). AVE for hierarchy culture (.70) is bigger than the shared variance

of hierarchy culture with structural empowerment (.62), clan culture (.60), adhocracy

culture (.61), psychological empowerment (.54), job satisfaction (.26), and


AVE for psychological empowerment (.68) is bigger than shared variance of

psychological empowerment with structural empowerment (.53), clan culture (.54),

adhocracy culture (.50), hierarchy culture (.54), job satisfaction (.33), and

organizational commitment (.31). AVE for job satisfaction (.52) is bigger than shared

variance of job satisfaction with structural empowerment (.36), clan culture (.33),

adhocracy culture (.39), hierarchy culture (.26), psychological empowerment (.33),

and organizational commitment (.50).

AVE for organizational commitment (.74) is bigger than shared variance of

organizational commitment with structural empowerment (.44), clan culture (.43),

adhocracy culture (.40), hierarchy culture (.38), psychological empowerment(.31),

139

and job satisfaction (.50).Therefore, there is adequate discriminate validity for the

constructs in the model (see Table 4.12).

4.7 Structural Model

Base line model

The results in Figure 4.2 show a better model fit.

).

Path coefficient

After examining the model fit, the path coefficient was examined to determine the

relationship between exogenous variable and endogenous variables. The causal paths

can be evaluated in terms of statistical significance and strength, using standardized

path coefficient that ranges between -1 and +1. Based on of .05, the test statistics

generated from output should be greater than to indicate that the null

hypothesis can be rejected. The rejection of the null hypothesis means that the

structural coefficient is not zero (Bentler, 2002; Byrne, 1994). After reviewing the

statistical significance of the standardized paths, the strength of relationships among

the variables can be reviewed. According to Chin (1998), standardized paths should

be at least .20 in order to be considered meaningful for discussion.

4.7.1 Direct model

The results in Figure 4.9 show a better model fit.

) (see Appendix D6)

140

Table 4.12. Path coefficient of direct model (base line model)

Hypothesis Causal path Standardized

path coefficient

Organizational commitment Structural empowerment

Job satisfaction Structural empowerment

Organizational commitment Clan culture

Organizational commitment Adhocracy culture .168

Organizational commitment Hierarchy culture -

Job satisfaction Clan culture

Job satisfaction Adhocracy culture .243

Job satisfaction Hierarchy culture -.143

Psychological empowerment Structural empowerment .736***

Psychological empowerment Clan culture .370**

Psychological empowerment Adhocracy culture .115

Psychological empowerment Hierarchy culture -.058

The probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 3.368 in absolute value is .001.

In other words, the regression weight for structural empowerment in the prediction of

organizational commitment is significantly different from zero at .001 level. When

structural empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, organizational commitment

goes up by .474 standard deviation (β = .476; p < .001). The conclusion, therefore, is

that structural empowerment contributes significantly towards organizational

commitment at .001 level.



job satisfaction is significantly different from zero at .001 level. When structural

141

empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes up by 0.565

standard deviation (β = .565; p < .001). The conclusion, therefore, is that structural

empowerment contributes significantly towards job satisfaction at .001 level of

significance.


In other words, the regression weight for clan culture in the prediction of


clan culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, organizational commitment goes up by

.513 standard deviation (β = .513; p < .01). Therefore, the conclusion is that clan

culture contributes significantly towards job satisfaction at 01 level of significance.

The probability of getting a critical ratio as large as .976 in absolute value is .329. In

other words, the regression weight for adhocracy culture in the prediction of

organizational commitment is not significantly different from zero at .05 level. When

adhocracy culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, organizational commitment goes

up by .168 standard deviation (β = .168; p=.329). The conclusion, therefore, is that

adhocracy culture does not contribute significantly towards organizational

commitment at .05 level of significance.

The probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 2.085 in absolute value is .67. In

other words, the regression weight for hierarchy culture in the prediction of

organizational commitment is not significantly different from zero at .05 level. When

hierarchy culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, organizational commitment goes

up by -.197 standard deviation (β = -.197; p=.67). Therefore, the conclusion is that

adhocracy culture does not contribute significantly towards organizational

commitment at .05 level of significance.

142


In other words, the regression weight for clan culture in the prediction of job

satisfaction is significantly different from zero at .05 level. When clan culture goes

up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes up by .318 standard deviation (β =

.318; p < .05. Therefore, the conclusion is that clan culture contributes significantly

towards job satisfaction at .05 level of significance.


In other words, the regression weight for adhocracy culture in the prediction of job

satisfaction is not significantly different from zero at .05 level. When clan culture

goes up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes up by .243 standard deviation

(β = .243; p=.056). Therefore, the conclusion is that adhocracy culture does not

contribute significantly towards job satisfaction at .05 level of significance.


In other words, the regression weight for hierarchy culture in the prediction of job

satisfaction is not significantly different from zero at .05 level. When hierarchy

culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes up by _.143 standard

deviation (β = -.143; p=.475). Therefore, the conclusion is that hierarchy culture does

not contribute significantly towards job satisfaction at .05 level of significance.



psychological empowerment is significantly different from zero at .001 level. When

structural empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, psychological

empowerment goes up by .736 standard deviation (β = .736; p < .001). Therefore, the

143

conclusion is that structural empowerment contributes significantly towards

psychological empowerment at .001 level of significance.



psychological empowerment is significantly different from zero at .01 level. When

clan culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, psychological empowerment goes up by


culture contributes significantly towards psychological empowerment at .01 level of

significance.


In other words, the regression weight for adhocracy culture in the prediction of

psychological empowerment is not significantly different from zero at .05 level.

When adhocracy culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, psychological

empowerment goes up by .115 standard deviation (β = .115; p=.312). Therefore, the

conclusion is that adhocracy culture does not contribute significantly towards



In other words, the regression weight for hierarchy culture in the prediction of

psychological empowerment is not significantly different from zero at .05 level.

When hierarchy culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, psychological

empowerment goes up by -.058 standard deviation (β = -.058; p=.597). Therefore,

the conclusion is that hierarchy culture does not contribute significantly towards


144

The result of examining hypothesis one to 12 shows that six path coefficients of

twelve hypothesized relationships were statistically significant ( < .05) in the

structural model. There is a significant relationship between structural empowerment

and organizational commitment (hypothesis 1), as well as significant relationship

between structural empowerment and job satisfaction (hypothesis 2). In addition,

there is a significant relationship between clan culture and organizational

commitment (hypothesis 3), clan culture and job satisfaction (hypothesis 6) and also

clan culture and psychological empowerment (hypothesis 9).

In addition, the result shows a significant relationship between structural

empowerment and psychological empowerment (hypothesis 10). On the other hand,

the results show that there is no significant relationship between adhocracy culture

and psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In

addition, the results show that the relationship between hierarchy culture and

psychological empowerment is not significant.

Also, there is no significant relationship of hierarchy culture on job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. Thus, the results of the structural model in this study do

not support the research hypothesis that adhocracy culture positively affects

psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and organizational commitment

(hypotheses 4, 7, 11) and that hierarchy culture positively affects psychological

empowerment, job satisfaction and organizational commitment (hypotheses 5, 8, 12)

(see Table 4. 12).

The results of structural model also, showed that predictors (structural

empowerment, clan culture, adhocracy culture, and hierarchy culture) of

organizational commitment explained 79 percent of its variance =.79). Also,

145

these predicators (structural empowerment, clan culture, adhocracy culture, and

hierarchy culture) were explained 45 percent of job satisfaction variance =.45)

(Figure 4.3).

While the path coefficients are not significant for hypotheses 4, 5, 7, 11, and 12, the

present study removed the path from construct of adhocracy culture to the constructs

of psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and organizational commitment, as

well as the path from construct of hierarchy culture to the constructs of psychological

empowerment, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. To avoid

complexity, two constructs of adhocracy culture and hierarchy culture were removed

from the structural model.

146


CLAN CULTURE

HIERARCHY CULTURE

ADHOCRACY CULTURE

PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT


JOB SATISFACTION

OPPORTUNITY

INFORMATION

SUPPORT

RESOURCES

INFORMAL POWER

FORMAL POWER

CLAN ITEM1(Ca1)

CLAN ITEM2(Cb1)

CLAN ITEM3(Cc1)

CLAN ITEM4(Cd1)

CLAN ITEM5(Ce1)

CLAN ITEM6(Cf1)

ADHOCRACY 1

ADHOCRACY 2

ADHOCRACY 3

HIERARCHY ITEM2(Cb4)

HIERARCHY ITEM3(Cc4)

HIERARCHY ITEM5(Ce4)

HIERARCHY ITEM6(Cf4)

STATUS IMPACTAUTONOMYSELF-EFFICACYPROFESSIONAL GROWTHDECISION MAKING



PAY

PROMOTION

FRINGE BENEFITS

COMMINUCATION

CONTIGENT REWARDS

e19

e18

e17

e16

e13

e14

e15

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e12

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e20 e21 e22 e23 e24 e25

e32

e31

e30

e29

e28

e26

e27.76

.78

.52

.82

.79

.78

.65

.84

.89

.85

.87

.80

.90

.91

.89

.79

.70

.58

.60

.86 .88.82 .77

.70 .86

.58

.56

.52

.64

.67

.70

.97

.48

.56

.79

.51

.17

-.20

.32

.24

-.14

.74.37

.12

-.06

.00

.00

.76

.76

.78

.76

.78

RES2

RES3

RES1

.79

.45

.00

Figure 4.3. Structural Model (base line model)

147

4.7.2 Respecified model

Direct model


In other words, the regression weight for structural empowerment is in the prediction

of organizational commitment is significantly different from zero at .01 level. When

structural empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, organizational commitment

goes up by .372 standard deviations (β =.372; p < .01). The result concludes that

structural empowerment contributes significantly towards organizational

commitment at .01 levels of significance.

The probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 3.25 in absolute value is .001. In

other words, the regression weight for structural empowerment is in the prediction of

job satisfaction is significantly different from zero at .001 level. When structural

empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes up by .359

standard deviations. (β = .359; p < .001). The result concludes that structural


significance.


In other words, the regression weight for clan culture is in the prediction of job

satisfaction is significantly different from zero at .05 level. When clan culture goes

up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes up by .217 standard deviation (β =

.217; p < .05). Therefore, the conclusion is that clan culture contributes significantly

towards job satisfaction at .05 level of significance.

148




clan culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, organizational commitment goes up by

.345 standard deviation (β = .345; p < .01). The result concludes that clan culture

contributes significantly towards organizational commitment at .01 level of

significance.

The probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 5.735 in absolute value is less

than .001. In other words, the regression weight for structural empowerment in the

prediction of psychological empowerment is significantly different from zero at .001

levels. When structural empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, psychological

empowerment goes up by .698 standard deviation (β = .698; p < .001). Therefore, the

conclusion is that structural empowerment contributes significantly towards


The probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 2.008 in absolute value is less

than .043. In other words, the regression weight for clan culture in the prediction of

psychological empowerment is significantly different from zero at 0.05 levels. When

clan culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, psychological empowerment goes up by



significance (see Table 4.13).

The results of structural model showed that structural empowerment and clan culture

were explained 47 percent of variance in organizational commitment variable

149

=.47). Also, these predicators (structural empowerment and clan culture) were

explained 305 percent of job satisfaction variance =.30) (Figure 4.4).

Table 4.13. Path coefficients of direct model (respecified model)

Hypothesis Causal path Standardized

path coefficient

Organizational commitment Structural

empowerment



Job satisfaction Clan culture

Psychological empowerment Structural

empowerment

Psychological empowerment Clan culture

150


CLAN CULTURE



JOB SATISFACTION

OPPORTUNITY

INFORMATION

SUPPORT

RESOURCES

INFORMAL POWER

FORMAL POWER

CLAN ITEM1(Ca1)

CLAN ITEM2(Cb1)

CLAN ITEM3(Cc1)

CLAN ITEM4(Cd1)

CLAN ITEM5(Ce1)

CLAN ITEM6(Cf1)




PAY

PROMOTION

FRINGE BENEFITS

COMMINUCATION

CONTIGENT REWARDS

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e12

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e20 e21 e22 e23 e24 e25

e32

e31

e30

e29

e28

e26

e27

.79

.81

.55

.83

.77

.67

.66

.84

.94

.86

.88

.80

.88 .83.72 .82

.73 .89

54

.60

.58

.70

.72

.70

.97

.00

.00

RES2

RES3

RES1

.37

.76

.31

.22.70

.36

.35

.47

.30

.00

Figure 4.4. Structural Model (respecified model)

151

4.7.3 Partial Mediated Model

Examining the model fit showed the model fit in fit indices (

) (see Appendix E3).

Examining the path coefficient to determine the relationship between exogenous

variables and endogenous variables showed that the probability of getting a critical

ratio as large as 5.061 in absolute value is less than .001. In other words, the

regression weight for structural empowerment in the prediction of psychological

empowerment is significantly different from zero at the .001 level. The estimate of

standardized regression weight showed that when structural empowerment goes up

by 1 standard deviation, psychological empowerment goes up by .68 standard

deviation (β = .680; p < .001). Therefore, the conclusion is that structural

empowerment contributes significantly towards psychological empowerment at .001

level of significance.

The results showed that the probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 2.305 in

absolute value is .28. In other words, the regression weight for clan culture in the

prediction of psychological empowerment is significantly different from zero at the

.05 level. Estimate of standardized regression weight showed that when clan culture

goes up by 1 standard deviation, psychological empowerment goes up by .227

standard deviation (β = .227; p < .05). Therefore, the conclusion is that clan culture

contributes significantly towards psychological empowerment at .05 level of

significance.

152


CLAN CULTURE



JOB SATISFACTION

OPPORTUNITY

INFORMATION

SUPPORT

RESOURCES

INFORMAL POWER

FORMAL POWER

CLAN ITEM1(Ca1)

CLAN ITEM2(Cb1)

CLAN ITEM3(Cc1)

CLAN ITEM4(Cd1)

CLAN ITEM5(Ce1)

CLAN ITEM6(Cf1)




PAY

PROMOTION

FRINGE BENEFITS

COMMINUCATION

CONTIGENT REWARDS

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e12

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e20 e21 e22 e23 e24 e25

e32

e31

e30

e29

e28

e26

e27

70

77

.69

.55

.80

.80

.84

.94

.88

.67

.87

.79

.83 .90.81 .76

.69 .82

.77

.58

.51

.50

.52

.71

.94

.43

.28

RES2

RES3

RES1

.25

.75

.23

.20.68

.26

.21

.52

.59

.63

Figure 4.5. Structural Model (partial mediated model)

153


absolute value is .001. In other words, the regression weight for psychological

empowerment in the prediction of job satisfaction is significantly different from zero

at the .001 level. The estimate of standardized regression weight showed that when

psychological empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes

up by .43 standard deviation (β = .43; p < .001). Therefore, the conclusion is that

psychological empowerment contributes significantly towards job satisfaction at

.001 level of significance.


absolute value is less than .049. In other words, the regression weight for

psychological empowerment in the prediction of organizational commitment is

significantly different from zero at the .05 level. The estimate of standardized

regression weight showed that when psychological empowerment goes up by 1

standard deviation, organizational commitment goes up by .28 standard deviation (β

= .280; p < .05). Therefore, the conclusion is that psychological empowerment


significance.


absolute value is less than .004. In other words, the regression weight for clan culture

in the prediction of organizational commitment is significantly different from zero at

the .01 level. The estimate of standardized regression weight showed that when clan

culture goes up by 1 standard deviation organizational commitment goes up by .263

standard deviation (β = .263; p < .01). Therefore, the conclusion is that clan culture

154


significance.


absolute value is less than .037. In other words, the regression weight for structural

empowerment in the prediction of organizational commitment is significantly

different from zero at the .05 level. The estimate of standardized regression weight

showed that when organizational culture goes up by 1 standard deviation

organizational commitment goes up by .245 standard deviation (β = .245; p < .05).

Therefore, the conclusion is that structural empowerment contributes significantly

towards organizational commitment at .05 level of significance.


absolute value is .26. In other words, the regression weight for structural

empowerment in the prediction of job satisfaction is significantly different from zero


structural empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes up by

.212 standard deviation (β = .212; p < .05). Therefore, the conclusion is that

structural empowerment contributes significantly towards job satisfaction at .001

level of significance.


absolute value is .51. In other words, the regression weight for clan culture in the

prediction of job satisfaction is significantly different from zero at the .05 level. The

estimate of standardized regression weight showed that when clan culture goes up by

1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes up by .201 standard deviation (β = .201; p

155

< .05). Therefore, the conclusion is that clan culture contributes significantly towards

job satisfaction at .001 level of significance (see Table 4.14).

The results of partial mediated model showed that structural empowerment and clan

culture were explained 63 percent of variance in psychological empowerment

variable =.63). Also, structural empowerment and clan culture were explained 52

percent of organizational commitment variance =.52). These variables (structural

empowerment and clan culture) were explained 59 percent of variance in job

satisfaction =.59) (Figure 4.6).

Table 4.14. Standardized indirect effect

Hypothesis Causal path Path

coefficient

Psychological empowerment Structural empowerment

Psychological empowerment Clan culture

Job satisfaction Psychological empowerment

Organizational commitment Psychological empowerment

Job satisfaction Clan Culture


Organizational commitment Structural empowerment


156

4.7.4 Full Mediated Model

Examining the model fit showed the model fit in fit indices (

). The results showed

that the probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 5.642 in absolute value is less

than .001. In other words, the regression weight for structural empowerment in the

prediction of psychological empowerment is significantly different from zero at the

.001 level. The estimate of standardized regression weight showed that when

structural empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, psychological

empowerment goes up by .657 standard deviation (β = .657; p < .001). Therefore,

the conclusion is that structural empowerment contributes significantly towards



absolute value is less than .044. In other words, the regression weight for clan culture

in the prediction of psychological empowerment is significantly different from zero


clan culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, psychological empowerment goes up

by .314 standard deviation (β = .314; p < .05). Therefore, the conclusion is that clan


significance.


absolute value is less than .001. In other words, the regression weight for

psychological empowerment in the prediction of job satisfaction is significantly

different from zero at the .001 level.

157


CLAN CULTURE



JOB SATISFACTION

OPPORTUNITY

INFORMATION

SUPPORT

RESOURCES

INFORMAL POWER

FORMAL POWER

CLAN ITEM1(Ca1)

CLAN ITEM2(Cb1)

CLAN ITEM3(Cc1)

CLAN ITEM4(Cd1)

CLAN ITEM5(Ce1)

CLAN ITEM6(Cf1)




PAY

PROMOTION

FRINGE BENEFITS

COMMINUCATION

CONTIGENT REWARDS

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e12

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e20 e21 e22 e23 e24 e25

e32

e31

e30

e29

e28

e26

e27

.59

.70

.83

.54

.80

.81

.67

.84

.94

.88

.89

.80

.80 .90.78 .74

.68 .81

.77

.58

.51

.50

.52

.73

.91

.54

.62

RES2

RES3

RES1

.00

.73

.32

.00.66

.00

.00

.49

.61

.67

Figure 4.6. Structural Model (full mediated model)

158

The estimate of standardized regression weight showed that when psychological

empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes up by 0.536

standard deviation (β = .536; p < .001). The result concludes that psychological


significance. The results showed that the probability of getting a critical ratio as large

as 7.857 in absolute value is less than .001. In other words, the regression weight for

psychological empowerment in the prediction of organizational commitment is

significantly different from zero at the .001 level. The estimate of standardized

regression weight showed that when psychological empowerment goes up by 1

standard deviation, organizational commitment goes up by .623 standard deviation (β

= .623; p < .001). The result concludes that psychological empowerment contributes

significantly towards organizational commitment at .001 level of significance.

Direct, indirect and total effects of all bivariate pairs in the mediation path showed in

Table 4.15.

Table 4.15. Direct, indirect and total effects of latent exogenous variables on job

satisfaction and organizational commitment

Path Direc

t

Effec

t

Indirect

Effect

Total Effect

Structural empo → Org commitment .372 .68 × .28 =

.190

.372 + .190 = .562

Structural empo→ Job Satisfaction .359 .68 × .43 =

.292

.359 + .292 = .651

Structural Empo→ Psychological

Empo

.698 .000 .698 + .000 = .698

Clan culture → Org commitment .345 .23 × .28 = .345 + .064 = .409

159

.064

Clan culture→ Job satisfaction .217 .23 × .43 =

.098

.217 + .098 = .315

Clan culture → Psychological Empo .310 .000 .310 + .000 = .310

Psychological Empo→ Job

satisfaction

.430 .000 .430 + .000 = .430

Psychological Empo→ Org

commitment

.280 .000 .280 + .000 = .280

The results of full mediated model showed that structural empowerment and clan

culture were explained 67 percent of variance in psychological empowerment

variable =.67). Also, structural empowerment and clan culture were explained 49

percent of organizational commitment variance =.49). These variables (structural

empowerment and clan culture) were explained 61 percent of variance in job

satisfaction =.61) (Figure 4.6). Direct, indirect and total effects of all bivariate

pairs in the mediation path

4.8 Mediation role of psychological empowerment

1. Mediation effect of psychological empowerment in the relationship

between structural empowerment and organizational commitment

Based on Baron and Kenny (1986) approach, structural empowerment as the

independent variable has positive significant effect on psychological empowerment

as the mediator variable (β = .698; p < .001). Second, structural empowerment has

positively significant effect on organizational commitment as the dependent variable

(β = .372; p < .001). Third, psychological empowerment as the mediator has

160

significant and positive effect on organizational commitment as the dependent

variable (β = .280; p < .05). Based on Baron and Kenny (1986) approach, if the

effects of independent variable on dependent variable disappear after mediator

controlled, it is called complete mediation. Partial mediation is the case that the path

from independent variable to dependent variable is reduced but is still significant

when mediator is introduced. So based on this criteria, the effect of structural

empowerment (independent variable) on organizational commitment (dependent

variable) is reduced (β = .245; p < .05); but is still significant after introducing

psychological empowerment (mediator variable). The result shows that

psychological empowerment partially mediated the relationship between structural

empowerment and organizational commitment.


between clan culture and job satisfaction

Based on Baron and Kenny (1986) approach, clan culture as the independent

variable has positive significant effect on psychological empowerment as the

mediator variable (β = .310; p < .05). Second, clan culture has positively significant

effect on job satisfaction as the dependent variable (β = .217; p < .05). Third,

psychological empowerment as the mediator has significant and positive effect on

job satisfaction as the dependent variable (β = .430; p < .05). Based on Baron and

Kenny (1986) approach, if the effects of independent variable on dependent variable

disappear after mediator controlled, it is called complete mediation. Partial mediation

is the case that the path from independent variable to dependent variable is reduced

but is still significant when mediator is introduced. So based on this criteria, the

effect of clan culture (independent variable) on job satisfaction (dependent variable)

is reduced (β = .201; p < .05); but is still significant after introducing psychological

empowerment (mediator variable). The result shows that psychological

161

empowerment partially mediated the relationship between clan culture and job

satisfaction.


between clan culture and organizational commitment

Based on Baron and Kenny (1986) approach, clan culture as the independent

variable has positive significant effect on psychological empowerment as the

mediator variable (β = .310; p < .05). Second, clan culture has positively significant

effect on organizational commitment as the dependent variable (β = .345; p < .001).

Third, psychological empowerment as the mediator has significant and positive

effect on organizational commitment as the dependent variable (β = .280; p < .05).

Based on Baron and Kenny (1986) approach, if the effects of independent variable

on dependent variable disappear after mediator controlled, it is called complete

mediation. Partial mediation is the case that the path from independent variable to

dependent variable is reduced but is still significant when mediator is introduced. So

based on this criteria, the effect of clan culture (independent variable) on

organizational commitment (dependent variable) is reduced (β = .263; p < .05); but is

still significant after introducing psychological empowerment (mediator variable).

The result shows that psychological empowerment partially mediated the relationship

between clan culture and organizational commitment.


between structural empowerment and job satisfaction

Based on Baron and Kenny (1986) approach, structural empowerment as the

independent variable has positive significant effect on psychological empowerment

as the mediator variable (β = .698; p < .001). Second, structural empowerment has

positively significant effect on job satisfaction as the dependent variable (β = .359; p

162

< .001). Third, psychological empowerment as the mediator has significant and

positive effect on job satisfaction as the dependent variable (β = .430; p < .001).

Based on Baron and Kenny (1986) approach, if the effects of independent variable

on dependent variable disappear after mediator controlled, it is called complete

mediation. Partial mediation is the case that the path from independent variable to

dependent variable is reduced but is still significant when mediator is introduced. So

based on this criteria, the effect of structural empowerment (independent variable) on

job satisfaction (dependent variable) is reduced (β = .212; p < .05); but is still

significant after introducing psychological empowerment (mediator variable). The

result shows that psychological empowerment partially mediated the relationship

between structural empowerment and job satisfaction.

4.9 Nested model comparison

In order to choose from among two partial mediated and full mediated models,

nested model comparisons were used. This suggests the most commonly used

method for comparing the fit of two nested models. Test the null hypothesis of no

significant difference in fit by evaluating whether the chi-square difference is

significant, for the given degrees of freedom and a chosen significance level. If the

difference is significant, then the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 4.16. Nested model comparisons

Model DF CMIN P NFI

Delta-1

IFI

Delta-2

RFI

rho-1

TLI

rho-

o2

Full mediated

effect

4 48.609 .000 .010 .011 .009 .010

Table 4.16 shows chi-square difference of 36.211 with DF=4, and the statistic of

significance is significant indicating that the partial mediated model represent a

better model fit than the full mediated model.

163

4.10 Bootstrapping

The study want to test whether an indirect effect exist

In relationship between structural empowerment and organizational

commitment through psychological empowerment

In relationship between structural empowerment and job satisfaction through

psychological empowerment

In relationship between organizational culture and organizational

commitment through psychological empowerment

In relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction through

psychological empowerment

Checking the results of standardized indirect effect revealed that the estimated

indirect effect of structural empowerment on job satisfaction is .360. This is due to

the indirect (partial mediated) effect of structural empowerment on job satisfaction,

when structural empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes

up by .360 standard deviation. This is in addition to any direct effect that structural

empowerment may have on job satisfaction.

The estimated indirect effect of structural empowerment on organizational

commitment is .190. This is due to the indirect ( partial mediated) effect of structural

empowerment on organizational commitment, when structural empowerment goes up

by 1 standard deviation, organizational commitment goes up by .190 standard

deviation. This is in addition to any direct effect that structural empowerment may

have on organizational commitment.

The estimated indirect effect of clan culture on job satisfaction is .170. This is due to

the indirect (partial mediated) effect of clan culture on job satisfaction. When clan

164

culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, job satisfaction goes up by .17 standard

deviation. This is in addition to any direct effect that clan culture may have on job

satisfaction.

The estimated indirect effect of clan culture on organizational commitment is .163.

This is due to the indirect (partial mediated) effect clan culture on organizational

commitment, when clan culture goes up by 1 standard deviation, organizational

commitment goes up by .163 standard deviation. This is in addition to any direct

effect that clan culture may have on organizational commitment.

4.11 Significance of Standardized Indirect Effect

Bootstrap standard error results are shown below. The results show that the standard

error for the indirect estimate of structural empowerment on job satisfaction is at

.136 while the standard error for the indirect estimate of structural empowerment on

organizational commitment is at .125. The results also show that the standard error

for the indirect estimate of organizational culture on job satisfaction is at .076 and the

standard error for the indirect estimate of organizational culture on organizational

commitment is at .042.

Table 4.17 shows the significance of the indirect effect of psychological

empowerment in relationship between structural empowerment and job satisfaction

and organizational commitment. The standardized indirect effect of structural

empowerment on job satisfaction is between .236 and .513 and the level of

confidence is 95 percent. The indirect effect is significant (p=.001). The standardized

indirect effect of structural empowerment on organizational commitment is between

.272 and .593 and the level of confidence is 95 percent. The indirect effect is

therefore significant at .001 (p=.001).

165

The results of Table 4.17 show that there is a significant indirect effect on the

influence of structural empowerment on organizational commitment and job

satisfaction through psychological empowerment.

Table 4.17. Indirect effect on the influence of structural empowerment on

organizational commitment and job satisfaction through psychological

empowerment

Point estimate SE Bootstrapping

Percentile 95% p

lower upper

Org commitment .360 .136 .272 .593 .001

Job Satisfaction .190 .125 .236 .513 .001

Table 4.18 shows the significance of the indirect effect of psychological

empowerment in relationship between clan culture and job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. The standardized indirect effect of clan culture on job

satisfaction is between .036 and .410 and the level of confidence is 95 percent. The

indirect effect is therefore significant at .05 level of significance (p=.023).

The standardized indirect effect of clan culture on organizational commitment is

between .012 and .373 and the level of confidence is 95 percent. Thus, the indirect

effect is significant at 05 level of significance (p=.048). Therefore, there is a

significant indirect effect on the influence of organizational culture on organizational

culture and job satisfaction through psychological empowerment.

Table 4.18. Indirect effect on the influence of organizational culture on

organizational culture and job satisfaction through psychological empowerment

Point estimate SE Bootstrapping

166

Percentile 95% p

lower upper

Org commitment .120 .076 .012 .373 .05

Job satisfaction .063 .042 .036 .410 .05

CHAPTER 5

5 CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the findings of the study, theoretical and practical implications

of study, its contribution to human resource development as well as

recommendations for further research and also the conclusion.

5.2 Discussion

5.2.1 Measurement Models

Findings from the measurement models are discussed briefly. First, the present study

found that for the six dimensions of structural empowerment (opportunity,

information, support, resources, formal power, and informal power) the factor

loadings were above the appropriate value and these dimensions significantly loaded

on the construct of structural empowerment (p < .001). All observed indicators had

high factor loading on the first order constructs (> .5). Averaged variance was

extracted and constructs reliability and composite reliability supported validity and

reliability of this construct. Discriminant validity was also fully supported.

167

Second, the present study found that the four dimensions (Clan, adhocracy, market,

and hierarchy) were strongly loaded on the organizational culture construct and the

observed indicators loaded on the appropriate first-order construct (p < .001). In

addition, average variance was extracted and the composite reliability and

discriminant validity achieved appropriate threshold levels.

Third, the findings reported that the six dimensions of psychological empowerment

(decision making, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, autonomy, and impact)

loaded on the second-order construct of psychological empowerment (p < .001) and

factor loadings of observed indicators achieved the appropriate level. In addition, the

average variance was extracted, and the composite reliability and discriminant

validity met the threshold values. However, the model did not properly fit for the

psychological empowerment construct; therefore and item parceling was done in

order to achieve the good model fit. The result showed better model fit after item

parceling was done

Fourth, the present study findings of three dimensions of organizational commitment

(affective, normative and continuance) found that all items were not strongly loaded

on their first-order construct. In particular, observed indicators of continuance

commitment did not get appropriate factor loadings and were therefore deleted from

the first order construct. Further test for composite reliability, average variance was

extracted and the discriminant validity supported. The present study argues that the

construct of organizational commitment would be better understood as a two-factor

construct of affective and normative commitment.

168

Fifth, the present study found that nine dimensions of job satisfaction (pay,

promotion, supervision, fridge benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions,

coworkers, nature of work and communication) did not loaded on the construct of

job satisfaction. Also the model did not fit, therefore item parceling were conducted

to get better model fit. In particular, four dimensions (supervision, operating

conditions, coworkers and nature of works) did not achieve the significant loading

with job satisfaction construct. After omitting four (supervision, operating

conditions, coworkers and nature of works) dimensions, model fitted better and

achieve appropriate model fit with five dimensions (pay, promotion, , fringe benefits,

contingent rewards, and communication). Overall, the results of the overall

confirmatory factor analysis of five constructs showed that observed variables of

each dimension loaded properly with the constructs but overall confirmatory factor

analysis showed that the model did not fit appropriately, Therefore, item parceling

was conducted in order to achieve the model fit,

).

5.2.2 Structural Models

The findings from the structural models in present study supported all four main

hypotheses. The discussion is based on the respecified model in the measurement

models. Consistent with previous research indicating that structural empowerment

leads to an increase in construct of psychological empowerment significantly

(Spreitzer, 1996; Laschinger et al., 2001; Ghani et al., 2009; Cho, 2008; Dee, Alan,

Henkin & Duemer; 2003; Abdulahi, 2004; Laschinger, Finegan & Wilk, 2009;

Seibert et. al., 2004; Bailey, 2009).

169

The findings of this study reported that structural empowerment construct led to a

statistically significant relationship with psychological empowerment (.69; p < .001).

The present study empirically supported that structural empowerment should be

considered as antecedent of psychological empowerment in higher education context.

This result support that structural empowerment is key factor in enhancing

psychological empowerment in higher education, which was approved in other

organizations.

The results of the baseline structural model reveal that there is no significant

relationship between adhocracy culture and psychological empowerment, job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. Although, the present study reported

that hierarchy culture was a dominant culture in this study, there was no significant

relationship between hierarchy culture with psychological empowerment, job

satisfaction and organizational commitment in the study. Therefore, research

universities culture emphasizes order, rules and regulations, documentation, job

descriptions, as well as authority and control. Some researchers argue that hierarchy

culture is an appropriate tool in management (Cameron & Freedman, 1991), while

other researchers believe that hierarchy culture result in unsuccessful transferring of

information in the organization (Twati & Gammack, 2006).

This study has shown that adhocracy culture, with emphasis on entrepreneurship,

creativity, and innovation is weak in the organizational culture profile of research

universities. Meanwhile, research universities in Malaysia suffer from low level

market culture. Market culture is refers to goal achievement, productivity, task

accomplishment, planning and efficiency. Generally speaking, research universities

170

culture lacks external orientation which may be attributed partially to its strong

dependence on the Ministry of Higher Education.

The review of literature indicates that clan culture leads to significantly increased

psychological empowerment (.31, <.05) and the findings of this study support the

literature. A contextual variable such as culture should be examined to assess its

relationship with empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995) as it is more related to innovative

and effective organizations (Dickson, 1992) and describes the decision making

process at the bottom level of university, in a friendly workplace, which enhances the

academics’ psychological empowerment. Previous study has shown that

organizational culture can be accepted as another important factor influencing

psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995; Jonson, 2009, Bailey, 2009). This

study suggests that clan culture is a determinant in the psychological empowerment

of academic staff.

The present study examined structural empowerment in relation to job satisfaction

(.359, < .001). Previous studies showed the relationship between structural

empowerment and job satisfaction (Laschinger & Havens, 1997; Laschinger &

Wong, 1999; Winter-Collins & McDaniel, 2000; Laschinger et al., 2001; Laschinger

& Patrick, 2006; Chag, Shih & Lin, 2009). Based on the study by Laschinger, Purdy

and Almost (2007), structural and psychological empowerment of managers in

organizations is associated with greater job satisfaction.

The results of this study support the hypothesis that access to empowerment

structures in the organization affects job satisfaction. Studies in eastern as well as

western countries have shown the relationship between structural empowerment and


171

job satisfaction to be significant. Cai and Zhou (2009) examined the levels of

workplace structural empowerment perceived by Chinese clinical nurses, as well as

the relationship between nurses' perceptions of empowerment and job satisfaction.

The present study examined structural empowerment in relation to organizational

commitment (.372, p < .01), while previous studies have shown the relationship

between structural empowerment and organizational commitment (Laschinger &

Havens, 1997; Laschinger & Wong, 1999; Dee, Henkin & Duemer; 2003;

Laschinger & Shamian, 1996; Laschinger, Finegan & Wilk, 2009). A study on nurses

showed a strong and positive relationship between structural empowerment, job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover of employees (Laschinger,

Leiter, Day & Gilin, 2009). Affective commitment is related to all of the

empowerment structures with the strongest correlations to formal and informal

power (Cho, Laschinger & Wong, 2006). Structural empowerment has significant

and positive direct effects on individual-level psychological empowerment and

organizational commitment (Smith, Andrusyszyn & Laschinger, 2010; Cho et al.,

2006). Having the opportunity to build strong relationships with peers, access

information and resources may increase the academic staff’s commitment to the

university and their departments.

The present study also examined the relationship of clan culture with organizational

commitment (.345, p < .01), while previous studies investigated the relationship

between organizational culture and organizational commitment. Clan culture tends to

increase the level of commitment between managers and employees. Clan culture is

critical for employee organizational commitment and royalty (Zammuto &

Krakower, 1991), and encourages the implementation of management strategies in

172

order to obtain human resource development, organizational commitment and

collaboration (Stock et al., 2006; Gregory, Harris, Armenakis & Shook, 2009).

The present study examined the relationship of clan culture and job satisfaction and

found it to be positively significant (.217, p < .05). Previous studies have investigated

the relationship between clan culture and job satisfaction and found that job

satisfaction appears to be improved in a situation where its culture provides more

autonomy and participative decision making and continued learning (Apker, 2003;

Neuhauser, 2002; Park & Kim, 2009). Specifically, Park and Kim’s (2009) study,

which examined the four types of organizational culture on job satisfaction, revealed

that consensual culture, similar to clan culture, affects job satisfaction. Clan culture

has been associated with high levels of satisfaction with work, promotion, and

supervision (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991). This culture is also correlated with flexibility,

openness, responsiveness and high levels of growth. Therefore, clan culture may be

more helpful for improving job satisfaction of academic staff than control-based

culture (Gifford, Zammuto & Goodman, 2002; Park & Kim, 2009; An, Yom &

Ruggiero, 2010).

The present study examined psychological empowerment in relation to

organizational commitment (.280, p < .05). Previous studies have shown the

relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational commitment

(Kanter, 1983; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Wayne et al., 2000;

Wiley, 1999). The findings of this study are consistent with those of previous

research.

173

Academic staff who feel that their tasks and responsibilities are meaningful, have the

opportunity to participate in decision making at their work place, feel competency

about their jobs, and make an impact on peers through successful completion of their

teaching and research tasks, may be more intrinsically motivated in their

responsibilities and more committed in their departments that empower employees

(Liden, Wayne & Sparrowe, 2000; Aryee & Chen, 2006). Previous studies have also

found positive associations between empowerment, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment (Liu et al., 2006; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; Dee,

Henkin, & Duemer, 2003; Chiang & Jang, 2007; Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk,

2009). Psychological empowerment is related to organizational commitment in

organizations (Kramer, Siebert & Liden, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995; Laschinger, Finegan

& Shamian, 2001).

The present study examined the psychological empowerment related to job

satisfaction (.430, p < .01). Previous studies have shown the relationship between

psychological empowerment and job satisfaction (Liden, Wayne & Sparraw, 2000;

Spreitzer et al., 1997). Psychological empowerment may to be related to job

satisfaction perhaps because positive attitudes of academics staff towards their

responsibilities enhance effectiveness in doing their tasks. As an intrinsic tasks

motivation, experiencing the high level of psychological empowerment increases the

levels of job satisfaction (Liden, Wayne, & Sparraw, 2000). Previous studies have

also found positive associations between empowerment, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment (Liu et al., 2006; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002;

Laschinger & Havens, 1997; Laschinger & Wong, 1999; Chag, Shih & Lin, 2009;

Chiang & Jang, 2007).

174

The findings of the study reveal that psychological empowerment partially mediate

the effect of structural empowerment on organizational commitment in research

universities. The findings from the study indicate that structural empowerment leads

to increased organizational commitment not only through psychological

empowerment. Studies based on this model have demonstrated the importance of

mediating effect between the organizational environment and workplace outcome

behaviors (Laschinger et al., 2001; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; Chag, Shih &

Lin, 2009). Related studies identified only a partial mediating effect of psychological

empowerment between these variables (Lee, 2003; Huang & Wang, 2006). The

results reveal that psychological empowerment does not fully define the process of

relationship between structural empowerment and organizational commitment in the

educational context and in eastern countries.

The findings reported that psychological empowerment partially mediates the

relationship between structural empowerment and job satisfaction. The results show

that psychological empowerment partially mediates structural empowerment and job

satisfaction. The lack of a mediating effect found in this study has two possible

explanations. First, academics in Asian universities tend to have different

interpretations from the concept of structural and psychological empowerment,

which is a concept that derived from western countries. Empowerment mediates the

relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction (Bailey, 2009; Chang, Shih,

& Lin, 2009; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; Laschinger et al, 2001; Lee, 2003;

Huang & Wang, 2006).

On the other hand, the findings indicate that psychological empowerment partially

mediates the effect of clan culture on job satisfaction in research universities.

175

Psychological empowerment does not fully mediate the relationship between external

factors and job satisfaction. The findings from the study show that clan culture leads

to increased job satisfaction through psychological empowerment. Previous studies

in western countries show the mediating role of psychological empowerment in

relationship between clan culture and job satisfaction (Chang, Shih & Lin, 2009;

Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; Laschinger et al., 2001; Gregory, Brian, Albritton

& Osmonbekov, 2010).

The study explores how clan culture affects job satisfaction through psychological

empowerment. As previously mentioned in this study, there has been no known

research examining the mediating role of psychological empowerment in the

relationship between organizational culture and workplace outcomes in higher

education and especially in southeastern universities. This study shows how

enhancing empowerment in a supportive and friendly environment would allow for

job satisfaction (Ning, Zhong, Libo & Qiujie, 2009).

The findings of the last hypothesis have revealed that psychological empowerment

partially mediates the effect of clan culture on organizational commitment in

research universities. The findings from the study are that clan culture leads not only

to psychological but also to increased organizational commitment. The study

provides the initial foundation of the influence clan culture has on psychological

empowerment and organizational commitment. By demonstrating the mediating role

of psychological empowerment in relationship with clan culture and organizational

commitment, this study provides an insight on the important role clan culture has in

organizational commitment through psychological empowerment. Prior studies, such

as that of Laschinger et al. (2001) and Seibert et al. (2004) contain research models

176

that focus on psychological empowerment as the predictor variable and its effects on

Organizational commitment.

However, there have been no research studies that assess the mediating role of

psychological empowerment, especially in relationship with organizational culture

and workplace outcomes. If leaders desire to get the best performance from

academics in an appropriate culture, they should improve the psychological

empowerment of academic staff to help them develop greater commitment and

loyalty. Along with the studies of Seibert et al. (2004) and Bailey (2009), the results

of this study expand the multi-level empowerment literature on the effects of

organizational culture in higher education.

The results of the nested model also empirically support the present that there is a

need for emphasizing psychological empowerment as a partial mediator in the

relationships between structural empowerment and job satisfaction and

organizational commitment as well as considering psychological empowerment as a

partial mediator between organizational culture and job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. The results imply that there is a need for considering the

importance of the type of organizational culture in emphasizing work related

outcomes.

5.3 Implications

5.3.1 Theoretical Implications

The findings support the notion that organizational development studies have

focused on psychological empowerment as a mediator in the relationship between

structural empowerment and work-related outcomes. Meanwhile, psychological

177

empowerment is a mediator in relationship between organizational culture and work-

related outcomes. The findings indicate that structural empowerment affects work-

related outcomes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment). The findings

support the hypotheses, suggesting that university has to consider the importance of

psychological empowerment to increase academics’ job satisfaction and

organizational commitment among academics.

The literature on empowerment in higher education does not focus on the mediating

role of psychological empowerment between organizational culture and work-related

outcomes. Also, the dominant type of organizational culture is considered a predictor

of psychological empowerment and work-related outcomes, instead of the concept of

organizational culture. Therefore, this study suggests that the specific culture type

should be considered as a predictor first in organizational development studies.

Researchers in higher education organizations have not often considered the

importance of organizational culture in relation to empowerment and motivational

approaches. This study provides empirical support for the effect of cultural

orientations on academics’ work-related outcomes. The findings imply that

organizational culture may be one positive and significant factor to be considered.

Meanwhile, there is a need to consider the organizational culture when it emphasizes

increasing work-related outcomes through psychological empowerment. Previous

researches mention the importance of organizational culture and structure which can

directly or indirectly influence on the empowerment of employees (Koberg, Boss,

Senjem & Goodman, 1999; Spreitzer, 1996; Spreitzer, Janasz & Quinn, 1999). This

study adds to the existing knowledge of empowerment studies in research

178

universities by filling this gap. The results of this study support Kanter’s (1977)

organizational empowerment theory on Malaysian research universities.

The results of this investigation have implications for advancing both empowerment

theory and professional education settings. Regarding empowerment theory, the

findings of this study, contextualized by research universities setting, can be used to

develop Spreitzer’s (1997) theoretical model of psychological empowerment and

Kanter’s (1977) theoretical framework of structural empowerment in educational

institutions. As argued by Spreitzer and Kanter, theoretically these findings

emphasize the significance of the mediating role of psychological empowerment for

promoting the relationship between structural empowerment and organizational

culture with work-related outcomes. Also, a contribution of this research for the

empowerment literature is providing a model in this area of research. This proposed

model can be re-specified in order to create a better overall understanding of the

mediation of psychological empowerment and outcomes, such as job satisfaction and

organizational commitment within research universities environment. The results of

this study have implications for advancing empowerment theory which is a part of

organizational development theories in the human resource development field.

This study also creates new knowledge on socio-technical systems (STS) design in

universities which is a known way to increase productivity and job satisfaction. This

study is alike STS intervention, which focus on a combination of organizational

structure (information, resources, support and opportunity) and psychological

demand (psychological empowerment). This is especially important in today’s

environment when higher education is transitioning to world competition and

globalization models.

179

Several researchers have recognized the importance of the diagnosis and analysis of

culture, in order to provide a clear map of organizational strengths and weaknesses.

This need assessment can help leadership to choose appropriate strategies and

management techniques in educational setting in order to obtain effective workplace

outcomes behaviors (Ciampa, 1991, Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009). This study has

shown the type of organizational culture that is a key element in enhancing or

hindering empowerment, as well as job satisfaction and organizational commitment

of academic staff.

5.3.2 Implications for Practice

The present study suggests that leaders in higher education have to use the two

approaches to empowerment together to increase job satisfaction and organizational

commitment of academic staff. In practice, educational organizations should

emphasize management techniques and motivational approaches (empowerment) to

achieve better and qualified performance and organizational development. By

accepting the mediating role of psychological empowerment to increase job

satisfaction and organizational commitment of academic staff, leadership in

educational institutions has to introduce psychological empowerment in the context

of higher education.

Second, the results have shown that clan culture is an important predictor for

psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and commitment. Thus, leaders in

universities have to recognize the importance of clan culture in the context of higher

education. In addition, leaders in higher education need to focus on clan culture

practices in order to increase academics’ psychological empowerment and work-

180

related outcomes. Some ways to develop clan culture include: using strategies for

keeping balance between employees, motivating academics, and empowering staff to

provide suggestions and to make more decisions within their own areas of expertise

(Park & Kim, 2009). By creating a greater sense of psychological empowerment

among academic staff, levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction may

foster positively. This study adds new knowledge on empowerment in a southeastern

country such as Malaysia with a multi-cultural context and provides evidence for the

effectiveness of empowerment as a management technique to positively influence

motivational levels of academic staff.

Unlike previous research studies that examined empowerment and workplace

outcomes within business, this study primarily focuses on the Research University.

The present study also posits importance of cultural awareness before any attempt to

change the culture of research universities. By including culture as a variable in a

larger and inclusive model, researchers in the field of human resource development

may be able to fill the gap and understanding more key factors that influence

psychological empowerment as well as workplace outcomes.

5.4 Contribution to HRD

HR provides creative leadership to the higher education by entering basic knowledge

that increases personal and institutional productivity and effectiveness. This study

makes practical contributions to human resource development by providing new

ideas about the concept of psychological empowerment in higher education. The

concept of psychological empowerment in relation to organizational culture has not

been adequately researched in the higher education setting. The findings of this study

181

provide implications in relation to future management and leadership planning,

academics’ professional development and productivity in the higher education arena.

Determining the mediating role of psychological empowerment in relationship

between organizational culture, structural empowerment and work place outcomes

provides empirical support for possible systematic educational approaches or

organizational changes that can foster empowerment and performance in higher

education. Creating a culture of empowerment can influence academics’ abilities to

become more qualified in their teaching and research responsibilities.

This study has notable implications for HRD practitioners, especially those who are

interested in organizational effectiveness and development in educational settings by

knowing which type of organizational culture is predictive of academics’

psychological empowerment. This study will help HRD practitioners realize how

they can create an environment based on organizational culture that fosters

academics’ psychological empowerment that will lead to more positive workplace

outcomes among academic staff. Human resource practitioners and experts can take

action to create an organizational culture and structural empowerment that supports

psychological empowerment of academics.

Effective programs are needed to improve the quality of the workplace in research

universities. New paradigms for higher education are needed for the work

environment, and the preparation of empowered academics. The corporation of

results from this study can help to provide a systematic approach to environmental

changes in the context of research universities.

This study provides a deeper insight on the role of different types of organizational

culture intervention in research universities. HRD experts in higher education can see

182

which type of organizational culture has the potential for eternalizing or hindering

the empowerment and workplace outcomes. Organizational culture has a direct

impact on psychological empowerment. Therefore, it is important for HRD

practitioners and leaderships to examine the norms and values and how they could

foster or impede organizational development in higher education (Bailey, 2009).

This study provides insight on the important role of organizational culture in

psychological empowerment, which in turn will affect academics’ commitment and

satisfaction in research universities. It helps HRD experts to understand the concept

of organizational culture, such as how it shapes in higher education, especially in

research universities in southeastern countries and how it influences universities’

performance and leads to organizational development.

This study provides more knowledge to HRD frontiers with focus on the research

universities environment. This study advances the research on empowerment as two-

facetted phenomena. There are few studies that integrate the two aspects of structural

empowerment and psychological empowerment (Laschinger et al., 2001; Seibert,

Silver & Randolph, 2004). This study contributes to the body of research regarding

organizational culture, structural and psychological empowerment, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment. This study contributes to HRD theorists and

provides a different reflection of empowerment within the higher education

organizations, which are lacking in human resource development, especially in

Malaysia.

Those that will find this study most informative are human resource professionals

and training and development professionals. Selecting and keeping academic staff

183

that are satisfied and committed to their university is an important issue in human

resource development especially in educational settings.

The context of higher education is definitely different from that of other

organizations. According to this study, HRD frontiers realize how they can create an

environment based on an empowerment model that fosters satisfaction and

commitment among academics. HRD expertise can use this proposed model as a

guideline for creating and maintaining an environment where academics can make

decisions, based on information and resources and established guidelines by

mediating of psychological empowerment.

Examining organizational culture in universities has the potential to contribute to

greater awareness and understanding of the influence or influences the educational

environment may have on key aspects of development such as empowerment. An

understanding of organizational culture is a necessary predictor to change academics’

attitudes and their educational environment to one that is more constructive and that

more fully enhances the empowerment of academics. The organizational culture can

be useful in the evaluation of culture in research universities. Therefore, it can aid

HRD professionals in planning strategic programs for improvement of academics in

institutions of higher learning.

Prior research studies do not contain research models that assess the organizational

culture influence on both structural and psychological empowerment. Consequently,

this study is useful for human resource developers who do not have adequate

knowledge of the importance of organizational culture, such as how it shapes and

influences universities context and leads to the empowerment of academics, thus

resulting in higher education effectiveness. This research study provides empirical

184

data to support the concept that a combination of the organizational culture and

structural and psychological empowerment will increase academics’ job satisfaction


Also, this study has notable implications for HRD frontiers, especially the ones who

are interested on organizational effectiveness and development in higher education

settings, especially in southeastern countries.

Research regarding the mediating role of psychological empowerment has been

conducted in few industry sections, but not in higher education especially in research

universities. This study adds new knowledge to the concept of psychological

empowerment as an intervention for organizational development and performance

and effectiveness in human resource development area. The findings of this study

can provide guidance for investigating perceptions of access to empowerment

structures and psychological empowerment within higher education to aid in

identifying issues surrounding academic’s job satisfaction and commitment to

university.

5.5 Further Research

To improve understanding of the relationships between empowerment and job

satisfaction or organizational commitment among academic staff, in addition to the

variables tested in this study, other variables such as job stress, leadership styles and

professional development should also be analyzed in future studies to clarify the

mediating role of psychological empowerment and work attitudes.

Qualitative studies should be conducted to examine the concept of empowerment

among academic staff. These studies should explore possible explanations related to

185

academic staff empowerment. Longitudinal research is needed to ascertain the causal

nature of the relationship between contextual factors and workplace outcomes.

Meanwhile, empowerment of academics from a gender perspective can also be

considered.

Future studies might also examine the leadership/management style of the dean or

appropriate administrator at these institutions, as it relates to the perceived

empowerment levels of academic staff. Studies should be performed to establish

relationships between empowerment and academic staff and students’ performance.

Future research that includes group as well as individual levels of analysis is needed

to more fully understand the role of empowerment and outcomes.

Future research is needed to identify other mediating variables in relationship

between the contextual factors and workout comes as they would help expand the

current understanding of “how” in this relationship. Structural empowerment and

organizational culture should not be considered as an only alternative to increase job

satisfaction and organizational commitment of academic staff.

5.6 Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that structural empowerment and psychological

empowerment are both important predictors of job satisfaction and organizational

commitment (Laschinger & Havens, 1997; Laschinger & Wong, 1999). Meanwhile,

clan culture is a predictor of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

However, the mediating effect of psychological empowerment was observed

between external factors (structural empowerment and organizational culture) and

work-related outcomes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment).

186

This study posits that increased collaboration in the decision-making processes

enhance positive workplace behaviors among academic staff in research universities.

The partial mediating effect of psychological empowerment was observed between

structural empowerment and job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The

partial mediating effect of psychological empowerment was observed between

organizational culture and job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Previous

research showed the mediating role of psychological empowerment between

structural empowerment and work-related outcomes (job satisfaction and

organizational commitment) (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Liden et al., 2000; Lee,

2003; Laschinger et al., 2001; Huang & Wang, 2006; Chang, Shih & Lin, 2010).

The work environment in this study differs from the organizational settings studied

by previous researchers (Laschinger & Havens, 1997; Laschinger & Wong, 1999).

The geographical environment also differs from that of previous researches. This

study was the first attempt in examining the mediating role of psychological

empowerment in research universities and in southeastern countries, specifically

Malaysia. Academic staff in research universities needs more attention from the

management of higher education. In such a work environment, fostering

psychological empowerment for academic staff is an important issue, in order to

achieve better work-related behaviors (Liu & Yu, 2008; Laschinger et al., 2001;

Spreitzer, 1995).

The most important contribution of the present study is in the associations found

among organizational culture, empowerment, and workplace outcomes. The strength

of association among these variables may be particularly important in terms of

practical implications for academic staff in research universities, considering the

187

challenges that these institutions presently confront. In the context of higher

education, academics must be qualified and empowered enough in order to be more

committed and satisfied in order advance their long term role in research and

teaching (Bok, 2003; Newman, Couturier & Scurry, 2004).

The improvement of higher education performance and quality lies in an

organization’s ability to provide a culture for change through its human resources,

and system of decision-making (Mosadeghard, 2006). A transformation from

hierarchical leadership to decentralization and involvement are required for research

universities (Mizikaci, 2003). These transformations can provide long term

commitment to the organization, and job satisfaction. To promote greater feelings of

psychological empowerment, the responsibility of higher education is to give

autonomy, decision making and opportunity for professional growth and provide

sufficient opportunity to academics to accomplish their tasks.

Leadership plays an important role in the transformation of attitudes of employees

towards psychological empowerment (Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009). Giving

autonomy for accomplishing the tasks, providing information, rewards and support

may foster level of empowerment among employees. Meanwhile, strategies to

enhance self-efficacy and providing supportive environment can increase level

psychological empowerment (Quinn & Spreitzer 1997; Avolio, Zhu, Koh & Bhatia,

2004).

Malaysian universities follow a hierarchical structure which exists between academic

staff and administrators, students, and other stakeholders. On the other hand, research

studies reveal that governmental organizations are generally dominated by a

hierarchical culture, which their focus is on rule and regulations (Cameron & Quinn,

188

2006). Among three types of culture in this study (clan, adhocracy and hierarchy),

clan culture appears to increase job satisfaction, organizational commitment and

psychological empowerment. Therefore, there is a need for changing the culture

within the context of higher education (Gebhardt et al., 2006).

Only the partial mediating effect of psychological empowerment is observed

between organizational empowerment and job satisfaction. This is consistent with

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) model, and this study shows that psychological

empowerment has an important mediating role between the structural empowerment

and work place outcomes east Asian countries. Related studies identified only a

partial mediating effect of psychological empowerment between these variables

(Lee, 2003; Huang & Wang, 2006).

The lack of a mediating effect identified by this study has two possible explanations.

First, academics in Asian countries tend to have different interpretations of concept

of empowerment, which is a concept that originated in western societies. Second, the

work environment for academics in this study differs from previous studies in

educational settings (Littrell, 2007).

Although the indirect effect is small, this mediator helps to explain how and why

structural empowerment and organizational culture affects job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. There is a need for strategies that focus on facilitating

psychological empowerment to improve job satisfaction and to increase

organizational commitment.

To be able to productively and effectively affect academics positive work place

behaviors through structural empowerment and culture, interventions for

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T7T-4XH56B4-1&_user=152286&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000012478&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=152286&md5=6357d1d1d59453aa3f53ced9f700e5ae&searchtype=a#bib29




189

improvement must be implemented before any attempts are made. Policymakers may

want to re-examine institutional policies as they relate to decision-making,

professional growth, and academics’ autonomy.

The results of this study provide an insight and add new knowledge to research

universities environment which can help increasing structural and psychological

empowerment among academics, as this can facilitate positive workplace behaviors

and strengthen organizational performance. Strategies such as workplace

interventions, in-service training techniques may increase levels of organizational

commitment and job satisfaction from moderate to high.

In the field of higher education, academic staff empowerment is a means to facilitate

the development of research universities climate and is an attempt to create and

develop environment that lead to positive work place outcomes for academics and

students as well. Generally speaking, psychological empowerment creates natural

conditions for motivation to occur in research universities.

190

6 REFERENCES

Abdolahi, B. (2004). A model of psychological empowerment for staff of ministry of

science, research and technology (Doctoral dissertation). teacher training

university, Iran.

Abdullah, J. Y. (2009). Malaysian public universities and new approaches to meeting

global challenges. Retrieved May 15 2009,

from http://ummatanwasatan.net/2009/01/malasian-public-universites-and new-

approaches-to-meeting-global-challenges/htm.

Aiman-Smith, L. (2004). What do we know about developing and sustaining a

culture of innovation? What Do We Know Journal Review. 1: 1-5

Alderfer, C. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 4: 142-175.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,

continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 63: 1-18.

Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative

commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49: 252-276.

Alsop, R., Heinsohn, N., & Somma A. (2004). Measuring Empowerment: an

Analytic Framework. Empowerment Community of Practice Newsletter.

(Feb./Mar. 2004).

Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges.

Higher Education 41: 205-219.

Altbach, P. G. (2004). The costs and benefits of world-class universities. academe

online. (Jan-Feb 2004).

Altbach, P.G. (2004). Globalization and the university: myths and realities in an

unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management. 10(1): 3-25.

Altbach, P. G., & Umakoshi, T. (2004). Asian universities: historical perspectives

and contemporary challenges. Canada: JHU Press.

An, J. Y., Yom, Y. H., Ruggiero, J. S. (2010). Organizational culture, quality of work

life, and organizational effectiveness in Korean university hospitals. Journal of

Transcultural Nursing. 26(4): 109-119.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTEMPOWERMENT/0,,contentMDK:20268027~isCURL:Y~menuPK:546167~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:486411~isCURL:Y,00.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTEMPOWERMENT/0,,contentMDK:20268027~isCURL:Y~menuPK:546167~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:486411~isCURL:Y,00.html

191

Anderson, G. (2007). Experiences in academic government and decision-making of

full-time non tenure track faculty in communication fields. (Doctoral

dissertation) University of Southern California, U.S.A.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:

A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin.

103(3): 411-423.

ASHE Higher Education Report (2003). Governance in the twenty-first-century

university: Approaches to effective leadership and strategic management.

ASHE Higher Education Report. 30(1): 41-49.

Asmawi, A., & Mohan, A. V. (2010). Understanding patterns of organizational

culture: A study in Malaysian R & D institutions. Management of Innovation

and Technology (ICMIT), 2010 IEEE International Conference. Singapore

June 2010.

Arbuckle, J.L. (2006). Amos 7.0 User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Aryee, S. & 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: 793-801.

Aryee, S., Wyatt, T., & Min, M. K. (1991). Antecedents of organizational

commitment and turnover intentions among professional accountants in

different employment settings in Singapore. Journal of Social Psychology. 131:

545-556.

Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W. Koh, W. & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and

organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment

and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior

25(8): 951–68.

Bagozzi, R. P. & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing

multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem, Structural

Equation Modeling. 1(1): 35-67.

Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in

organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly. 36: 421-458

Bailey, T. L. (2009). Organizational culture, macro and micro empowerment

dimensions, and job satisfaction: an application of concurrent mixed and

multi-level methods in the federal sector. Touro University International,

U.S.A.

Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and

parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural equation

modeling. 9(1): 78–102.

http://www.gsu.edu/~mkteer/journals.html#PsychBull

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1554-6306




192

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction

in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical

considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51: 1173-1182.

Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based

framework. Journal of Higher Education, 45(1): 43-70.

Bennett, J. B. (1998). Collegial Professionalism the Academy, Individualism, and the

Common Good. U.S.A.: Phoenix: American Council on Education & Oryx

Press.

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1988). Practical issues in structural modeling. In J. S.

Long (Ed.), Common problems/proper solutions: Avoiding error in survey

research (pp.161-192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bentler, P. M. (2002). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual, Encino, CA:

Multivariate Software.

Bérubé, M. (2006). What does academic freedom” mean? Academe online, 2009,

from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006/ND/Feat/beru.htm

Biron, M., & Bamberger, P. (2010). The impact of structural empowerment on

individual well-being and performance: Taking agent preferences, self-

efficacy and operational constraints into account. Human Relations, 63(2),

163-191.

Blanchard, K., Carlos, J. P. & Randolf, A. (1996). Empowerment Takes More than a

Minute. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Blau, M. P. (1994). Bureaucracy and scholarship. In The organization of academic

work (2 illustrated ed.).New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’

organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational

citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education 20: 277-

289.

Bok, D. C. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization of higher

education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Bosley, C. L. M. (2005). Organizational culture and student empowerment in

baccalaureate nursing programs (Doctoral dissertation) Kent State University,

U.S.A.

Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. I. (1995). Empowering service employees. Sloan

Management Review. 36(4), 73-65.

Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. I. (2006). The empowerment of service workers:

what, why, how, when In D. Mayle (Ed.). Managing innovation and change

(pp. 288): Sage publications.

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006/ND/Feat/beru.htm

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=+inauthor:%22Derek+Curtis+Bok%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=7

193

Bowen, D. E., & Lawler III, E. E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers:

what, why, how and when. Sloan Management Review. 33(3): 31-39.

Brancato, V. C. (2003). Professional development in higher education. New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. (98): 59-66.

Breland, N. K. (2007). Mental health nurses' perceptions of empowerment and job

saisfaction a quantitative perspective. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba.

Brown, B. B. (2003). Employees’ Organizational Commitment and Their Perception

of Supervisors’ Relations-Oriented and Task-Oriented Leadership Behaviors.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, U.S.A.

Brown, K. (1989). Implantation of a learning program to train adolescent mothers to

live independently.

Bucher, (1970). Social process and power in a medical school. Nashville, TN:

Vanderbilt University Press.

Budd, J. (2005). The changing academic library: Operations, culture, environments.

Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries.

Burns, N., & Grove, S. (1999) Understanding Nursing Research. (2nd Ed).

Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company.

Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural Equation Modeling With EQS and EQS/Windows.

Newbury Park: Sage.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and

SIMPLIS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. New Jersey:

Erlbaum.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts,

applications, and programming. Multivariate applications book series.

Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Byrne, M. B. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: basic concepts,

applications, and programming (2, illustrated ed.): Routledge.

Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts,

applications, and programming Multivariate applications book series

.U.S.A.: Routledge.

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus. U.K.: Taylor &

Francis Group

Cai, C., & Zhou, Z. (2009). Structural empowerment, job satisfaction, and turnover

intention of Chinese clinical nurses. Nursing & Health Sciences, 11(4), 397-

403.

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=+inauthor:%22Barbara+M.+Byrne%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=4

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=+bibliogroup:%22Multivariate+applications+book+series%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=4

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=+inauthor:%22Barbara+M.+Byrne%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=4

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=+bibliogroup:%22Multivariate+applications+book+series%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=4

194

Cameron, K. S., & Ettington, D. R. (1988). The conceptual foundations of

organizational culture. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research,

New York: Agathon.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational

culture: based on the competing values framework (revised,

illustrated).U.S.A.: John Wiley and Sons.

Caplan, R. D. (1987) person-environment fit theory and organizations:

commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms, Journal of

Vocational Behavior. 31: 248-267

Casey, M., Saunders, J., & O’Hara, T. (2010). Impact of critical social empowerment

on psychological empowerment and job satisfaction in nursing and midwifery

settings. Journal of Nursing Management. 18(1), 24-34.

Careless, S.A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship

between psychological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of Business and

Psychology. 18: 405–425.

Chang, H. T., & Chi, N. W. (2006). The effects of three-components model of

organizational and occupational commitment on nurses’ intentions to leave

organization and occupation: the mediator of organizational and occupational

leaving intentions. Journal of Human Resource Management. 6: 111–133

Chang, L. C., Shih, C. H., & Lin, S. M. (2010). The mediating role of psychological

empowerment on job satisfaction and organizational commitment for school

health nurses: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International journal of

nursing studies, 47(4): 427-433.

Chiang, C. F., & Jang, S. S. (2008). The antecedents and consequences of

psychological empowerment: the case of Taiwan's Hotel companies. Journal of

Hospitality & Tourism research. 32(1): 40-61.

Chiles, A. M., & Zorn, T. E. (1995). Empowerment in organization:employee's

perception of influences on empowerment. Applied communication research,

23(1): 1-25.

Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS

Quarterly. 22(1): 7-16.

Cho, J., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Wong, C. (2006). Workplace empowerment, work

engagement and organizational commitment of new graduate nurses.

Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership. 19(3): 43-60.

195

Church, J. A. (2006). Empowerment, structure, process, and outcome in magnet and

non-magnet staff nurse practice: a quantitative study. (Doctoral dissertation).

University of Phoenix, U.S.A.

Clark, B. R. (1987). The Academic Life. Small Worlds, Different Worlds Princeton,

NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton

University Press.

Coffman, D. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis

models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 40(2):

235-259.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: integration

theory and practice. Academy of Management Review. 13(3), 471-482.

Contreras-McGavin, M. (2004). changing colleges and universities through

individual empowerment: exploring the intersection between institutional

actors and their organizations. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern

California, U.S.A.

Crawford, A. M. (2008). Empowerment and organizational climate: an investigation

of mediating effects on the core-self evaluation, job satisfaction, organizational

commitment relationship. (Doctoral dissertation). UNIVERSITY OF Auburn,

U.S.A.

Davies, M. A., Laschinger, H. K. L., &Andrusyszyn, M. A. (2006). Clinical

educators’ empowerment, job tension, and job satisfaction: A test of Kanter’s

theory. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development. 22(2), 78-86.

DeCicco, J., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Kerr, M. (2006). Perceptions of empowerment

and respect: Effect on nurses’ organizational commitment in nursing home.

Journal of Gerontological Nursing. 32: 49-56

Dee. J. R., Alan B. Henkin. A. B., & Duemer, L.(2003). Structural antecedents and

psychological correlates of teacher empowerment. Teacher Empowerment.

41(3): 257-277.

Dermott, K. M., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Shamian, J. (1996). Work Empowerment

and Organizational Commitment. journal of Nursing Management, 27(5), 44-

47.

Dickson, P. R. (1992). Toward a theory of competitive rationality. Journal of

Marketing. 56: 69–83.

Dimmitt, M. A. (2004). Organizational culture, faculty culture, and faculty

professionalization in an urban community college system university of

Missouri-Kansas city, U.S.A.

Douglass, J. (2005). How all globalization is local: Countervailing forces and their

influence on Higher education markets? Higher Education.18: 445-473

196

Dunst, R. (1991). Issues in empowerment. Presentation before the February Annual

Convention of the Children’s' Mental and Service Policy. Tampa, Florida

(February1991).

Duvall, C. K. (1999). Developing individual freedom to act: Empowerment in the

knowledge organization. Participation & Empowerment: an international

journal. 7(8): 204-212.

Echiejile, I. (1994). Empowering disadvantaged employees. Empowerment in

Organizations 2(1): 31-37.

Eckel, P. D. and King, J. E. (2004). An Overview of Higher Education in the United

States: Diversity, Access and the Role of the Marketplace, Washington, DC:

American Council on Education.

Edward, C. R. (1992). Relationships among teacher and principal perceptions of

principal authenticity and degrees of faculty empowerment. (Doctoral

dissertation) University of Georgia, U.S.A.

Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational

learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and

turnover intention. Human resource development quarterly. 15(3): 279-301.

Farrell, A. M. (2010). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove,

Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research. 63: 324–327.

Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work

life: an introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21 (2): 123-129.

Fralinger, B. (2007). Organizational culture at the university level: A study using the

OCAI instrument. Journal of College Teaching & Learning. 4(11): 85-98.

Fralinger, B., Olson, V., Pinto-Zipp, G. & DiCorcia, M. (2010). Organizational

culture at the university level: A follow-up study using the OCAI instrument,

Proceedings of 2010 EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings, Dublin,

Ireland, June7-10, 2010. Dublin, Ireland.

Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: theory, prophecy, and policy: Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: the third logic Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing

Research. 48: 39–50.

197

Ghani, A. Z., Raja Hussin, T. A. B., & Jussef, K. (2009). Antecedents of

psychological empowerment in the Malaysian private higher education

institutions. Journal of International Education Studies. 2(3): 161-165.

Gardenhour, C. (2008). Teachers’ Perceptions of Empowerment in Their Work

Environments as Measured by the Psychological Empowerment Instrument.

(Doctoral dissertation). East Tennessee State University, U.S.A.

Gaye, L., & Cullen, D. L. (1995). empowering the faculty; mentoring redirected and

renewed. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No: 3. Jossey-Bass

publication.

Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry J. F. JR. (2006). Creating a market

orientation, a longitudinal, multi-form, grounded: analysis of cultural

transformation. Journal of Marketing. 70(4): 37-55.

Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale

development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment, Journal of

Marketing Research. 25(1): 186-192.

Geroy, G. D., Wright, P. C., & Anderson, J. (1998). Strategic performance

empowerment model. Empowerment in Organizations. 6(2), 57-65.

Gifford, B. D., Zammuto, R. F., Goodman, E. A. (2002). The relationship between

hospital unit culture and nurses’ quality of work life. Journal of Healthcare

Management. 47: 13-26.

Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G, Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L. (2009).

Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and

organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research. 62(7): 673-679.

Glasman, N. S. (1995). Empowering middle managers in public education.

Empowerment in Organizations. 3(4): 20-25.

Gokenbach, V. (2004). the effects of an empowerment model intervention on

registered nurse trunover and absenteeism. University of Phoenix, U.S.A.

Gordon, G. & Whitchurch, C. (2007). Managing human resources in higher

education: The implications of a diversifying workforce. Higher Education

Management and Policy. 19 (2): 135-155.

Gormley, D. K. (2005). Organizational climate, role ambiguity, role conflict and

nurse faculty work role balance: Influence on organizational commitment

and turnover intention. (Doctoral dissertation) University of Cincinnati,

U.S.A.

Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Naismith, N. & Soetanto, R. (2008).

Understanding empowerment from an employee perspective: What does it

mean and do they want it? Team Performance Management. 14 (1): 39 – 55

198

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.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading. MA: Addison

Wesley.

Hair, J., Black, B. Babin, B., Anderson, R. & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate Data

Analysis (6th

edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hamilton, N. W. (2007). Faculty autonomy and obligation. Academe online. 2009.

from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2007/JF/Feat/hami.htm

Hanley, S. J., & Abell, S. C. (2002). Maslow and relatedness: Creating an

interpersonal model of self-actualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 42(4):

37-57.

Hawks, J. (1999). Organizational culture and faculty use of empowering teaching

behaviors in selected schools of nursing. Nursing Outlook. 47: 67-72.

Hechanova, R., Franco, E. P., & Alampay, R. (2006). Psychological empowerment,

job satisfaction and performance among Filipino service workers. Asian

Journal of Social Psychology. 9: 72-78.

Henkin, A. B. and Marchiori, D. M. (2003). Empowerment and organizational

commitment of chiropractic faculty. Journal of Manipulative and

Physiological Therapeutics. 26(6): 275

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing Co.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohavy, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring

organizational cultures: A quantitative and qualitative study across twenty

cases. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 35(2), 286-316.

Hoe, S. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling

technique. Journal of applied quantitative methods. 3(1): 76-83.

Holmbeck, G. N., Westhoven, V. C., & Phillips W. (2003). A multi-method, multi-

informant, and multi-dimensional perspective on psychosocial adjustment in

pre-adolescents with spin bifida. Journal of Consultant Clinical

Psychology.71: 782–796.

Honold, L. (1997). A review of the literature on employee empowerment.

Empowerment in Organizations. 5(4): 202-212.

Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and

measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly.

37: 296-321.

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2007/JF/Feat/hami.htm

http://jhp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Steven+J.+Hanley&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://jhp.sagepub.com/search?author1=Steven+C.+Abell&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451612396/bigdogsbowlofbis/

199

Huck, S. W. (2004). Reading Statistics and Research. Boston: Pearson Education

Inc.

Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z., & Cheung, Y. (2006). The impact of participative

leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational

commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: the moderating role of

organizational tenure. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 23(3), 345-367.

Hung, C. J. (2005). A correlational study between junior high school teacher

empowerment and job satisfaction in Kaohsiung area of Taiwan (China).

(Doctoral dissertation). University of the Incarnate Word, U.S.A.

İpek, C. (2010). Predicting organizational commitment from organizational culture in

Turkish primary schools. Asia Pacific Education Review. 11(3): 371-385.

Ismail, A. (2007). European support for Advancement of Malaysian Research. Paper

presented at the Asia-Link Symposium Malaysia, December 2007.

Johnson, B. A. H. (2001). Organizational culture and job satisfaction as antecedents

for empowerment of associate degree nursing faculty. (Doctoral dissertation).

Georgia State University, U.S.A.

Johnson, B.A. (2009). Empowerment of nurses through organizational culture,

Nursing Education Perspectives. 30(1) 8-13.

Jusoff, K., & Samah, A. (2009) Enhancing Malaysian innovative research leadership

from an experiential perspective. International Education Studies. 2(3): 106-

113.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic books.

Kathrins, R. (2007). The Relationship of Leadership Style and Types of

Organizational Cultures to the Effectiveness and Employee Satisfaction in

Acute Care Hospital. (Doctoral dissertation). Touro University, U.S.A.

Kaye, B., & Jordan-Evans, S. (2001). Retaining key employees. Public Management.

83: 6-11.

Keiser, C. M. (2007). the relationship between teacher empowerment and

organizational commitment. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Virginia,

U.S.A.

Kim, D. (2004). Employment relations and human resource development in South

Korea explorations in Asia Pacific Business economics. Aldershotim:

Ashgate publishing.

Kim, T. K. (2008). How organizational culture affects the empowerment of social

workers?: Application of multilevel modeling to social work research, society

for social work and research The SSWR Annual Conference. USA. January

2008.

200

King, A.S. & Ehrhard, B. J. (1997). Empowerment the workplace: A commitment

cohesion exercise. Empowerment in Organizations. 5(3): 139 -150.

Kirkman, B. L. & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and

consequences of team empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal.

42(1): 58-74.

Klecker, B., & Loadman, W. E. (1996). Dimensions of teacher empowerment:

identifying new roles for classroom teachers in restructuring schools. paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research

Association. Alabama June 1996.

Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In L.G. Grimm & P.R. Arnold (Eds.),

Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics. (pp. 227-260).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling:

Methodology in the social sciences. New York: Guilford Press.

Knol, J., & Van Linge, R. (2009). Innovative behavior: the effect of structural and

psychological empowerment on nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 65(2),

359-370.

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 and Organization Management. 24: 71–91.

Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational

leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal

of Organizational Behavior. 16: 319-333.

Komoo, I., Azman, N., & Aziz, Y. F. A. (2008). Malaysian research universities and

their performance indicators. Bulletin of Higher Education Research. 11(June):

1–28

Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empowerment

as multi-dimensional construct: a test of construct validity. Journal of

Educational and Psychology Measurement 59(1): 127-142.

Kusure, L. P., Mutanda, L., Mawere, D., & Dhliwayo, L. (2006). Factors influencing

research productivity among lecturers in teachers' colleges in Zimbabwe.

Southern African Journal of Education, Science and Technology 1(2), 118-

124.

Lambert, A. P. (2006). Faculty perceptions of empowerment, job satisfaction, and

commitment to organization in three Midwest universities. (Doctoral

dissertation). University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.A.

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=+bibliogroup:%22Methodology+in+the+social+sciences%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=11

201

Laschinger, H. K. S., & Havens, D. (1996). Staff nurse work empowerment and

perceived control over nursing practice, work satisfaction and work

effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration. 26(9): 27-35

Laschinger, H. K., & Wong, C. (1999). Staff nurse empowerment and collective

accountability: effect on perceived productivity and self rated work

effectiveness. Nursing Economics. 17(6): 308-316.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Casier, S. (2000). Organizational

trust and empowerment in restructured health care settings: Effects on staff

nurse commitment. Journal of Nursing Administration. 30(9): 413-425.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2001). Impact of

structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work

settings: expanding Kanter's model. Journal of Nursing Administration,

31(5), 260-272.

Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J. & Shamian, J. (2001). The impact of workplace

empowerment and organizational trust on staff nurses' work satisfaction and

organizational commitment. Health Care Management Review. 6(3): 7-23.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal

analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on staff nurses' work

satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 25(4): 527-545.

Laschinger, H. K. S. (2005). Research in nursing administration and nursing service

delivery: Building knowledge for evidence-based nursing administration

practice. In Smith, D. L. & Hibberd, N. J. (Eds.), Nursing leadership in

Canada (3rd

Ed). Toronto: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Purdy, N., & Almost, J. (2007). The impact of leader-member

exchange quality, empowerment, and core self evaluation on nurse managers’

job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Administration. 37: 221-229

Laschinger, H. K. S., Wilk, P., Cho, J., & Greco, P. (2009). Empowerment,

engagement and perceived effectiveness in nursing work environments: does

experience matter? Journal of Nursing Management. 17(5), 636-646.

Laschinger, H., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. (2009). Context matters: The impact of unit

leadership and empowerment on nurses’ organizational commitment. Journal

of Nursing Administration. 39: 228-235.

Laschinger, H., Leiter, M., Day, A., & Gilin, D. (2009). Workplace empowerment,

incivility, and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention

outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management. 17: 302-311.

Lashley, C. (1999). Employee empowerment in services: A framework for analysis.

Personnel Review. 5(4): 202-212.

202

Lautizi, M., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Ravazzolo, S. (2009). Workplace empowerment,

job satisfaction and job stress among Italian mental health nurses: an

exploratory study. Journal of Nursing Management. 17: 446-452.

Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S., & Benson, G. (2001). Organizing for High

Performance: The chief executive officer Report on Employee Involvement,

total quality management, Reengineering, and Knowledge Management in

Fortune 1000 Companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

League of European Research Universities. (2003). Research Intensive Universities

as Engines for the Europe of Knowledge Belgium: League of European

Research Universities.

Lee, M., & Koh, J. (2001). Is empowerment really a new concept? International

Journal of Human Resource Management. 12: 684-695.

Lee, M. N. N. (1997). Malaysia. In G. A. Postiglione & G. C. L. Mak (Eds.), Asian

higher education: An international handbook and reference guide (pp. 173–

197). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Lee, M. N. N. (2003). The academic profession in Malaysia and Singapore: between

bureaucratic and corporate cultures. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.). The decline of the

guru: the academic profession in the third world (pp. 338). New York:

Palgrave Macmillan

Lee, M. N. N. (2004). Malaysian universities toward equality, accessibility, and

quality. In P. G. Altbach & T. Umakoshi (Eds.). Asian universities: Historical

perspectives and contemporary challenges (pp. 377). Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Lewis, L. S. (1998). Scaling the ivory tower: merit & its limits in academic careers.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

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 Resource

Management (pp.386-403). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Liden, R., Wayne, S. J., Sparrow, 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): 407–416.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1986). On Goodness in Schools: Themes of Empowerment.

Peabody Journal of Education, 63(3), 9-28.

Littrell, R. F. (2007). Influences on employee preferences for empowerment

practices by the Ideal Manager in China. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations. 31(1): 87-110.

203

Liu, Y. (2008). Taiwanese Nurses’ Empowerment and Participation in Decision

Making. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, U.S.A.

Liu, C. H., Chang, L. C., Li, I. C., Liao, J. Y.,& Lin, C. I. (2006). Organizational and

psychological empowerment on organizational commitment and job

satisfaction among primary health professionals. Journal of Evidence Based

Nursing 2 (1): 5–13.

Loh, F. (2005). Crisis in Malaysia’s public universities? Balancing the pursuit of

academic excellence and the massification of tertiary education Aliran

Monthly, 25(10).

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. (pp. 1297–

1349). Chicago: Rand McNally College Publication Company.

Lok, P. (1997). The influence of organizational culture, subculture, leadership style

and job satisfaction on organizational commitment. (Doctoral

dissertation).University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.

Lok, P. & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and

organizational culture, subculture, leadership styles, job satisfaction in

organizational change and development Leadership and Organizational

Development Journal. 20 (7): 365-373.

Lok, P. & Crawford, J (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the

mediating role of job satisfaction Journal of Managerial Psychology. 16(8):

594-613.

Lok, P. & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organizational culture and leadership

style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A cross-national

comparison. Journal of Management Development. 22(3): 321-338.

Lok, P., Westwood, R., & Crawford, J. (2005). Perceptions of organizational

subculture and their significance for organizational commitment. Applied

Psychology: An International Review. 54(4): 490-514.

Logan, M. S. & Ganster, D. C. (2007). The effects of empowerment on attitudes and

performance: The role of social support and empowerment beliefs. Journal of

Management Studies. 44(8): 1523-1550.

Luby, C. E. (2006) A case of psychological empowerment of employees in a

community college. (Master thesis) University of Florida, USA. Available

from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3224579)

Lund, B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business &

Industrial Marketing. 18(3): 219–236.

204

Lyons, T. F. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and

withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 6: 99-110.

Machado, M. L. and Taylor, J. S. (2010). The struggle for strategic planning in

European higher education: the case of Portugal. Journal of Research in

Higher Education. 1(1): 1-20.

MacIntosh E. W., and Doherty, A. (2010). The influence of organizational culture on

job satisfaction and intention to leave. Sport Management Review. 13: 106–

17.

MacKinnon, D. P. (2000). Contrasts in multiple mediator models. In: R. J., Chassin,

L., Presson, C. C., Sherman, S. J. (Eds.), Multivariate Applications in

Substance Use Research: New Methods for New Questions (pp. 141–160).

New Jersey: Erlbaum, Mahwah.

Mallak, L. A., & Kurstedt, H. A., Jr. (1996). Understanding and using Empowerment

to change organizational culture. Industrial Management. 38(6): 8-10.

Malone, T. W. (1997). Is empowerment just a fad? control, decision making and IT.

Sloan Management Review. 38(2): 23-35.

Manojlovich, M., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2002). The relationship of empowerment

and selected personality characteristics to nursing job satisfaction. Journal of

Nursing Administration. 32(11): 586-595.

Marchiori, D. M., & Henkin, A. B. (2003). Empowerment of chiropractic faculty: A

profile in context Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

26(1): 17-24.

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988) Goodness-of-fit indexes in

confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological

Bulletin. 103: 391-410.

Martin-Crawford, L. (1999). Empowerment in healthcare. Participation &

Empowerment: An International Journal, 7(1): 15-24.

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford

University Press.

McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2001). The regulation of transnational higher education

in Southeast Asia: Case studies of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia.

Higher Education 42: 85-105.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American

Psychologist, 20(5): 321-333.

205

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Giggleman, M., & Cruz, R. (2010). Correlates

among cognitive beliefs, EBP implementation, organizational culture,

cohesion and job satisfaction in evidence-based practice mentors from a

community hospital system. Nursing Outlook. 58(6): 301-8.

Menon, S. T. (1995). Employee empowerment definition, measurement, and

construct validation. (Doctoral dissertation) McGill University, Canada.

Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (2000). A guide to research for educators and

trainers of adults: Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of

organizational commitment. human resource management review, 1(1), 61-

89.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: theory, research,

and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publication.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and

occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization.

Journal of Applied Psychology. 78(4): 538-551.

Meyerson, S. (2007). Updating empowerment: the role of leadership and self-

reliance on the psychological and environmental aspects of empowerment.

University of Calgary, Calgary.

Mills, P. K. & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural

empowerment: organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of

Management Review. 28 (1): 143-53.

Ministry of Education. (2004). Establishment of research universities in Malaysia: A

concept paper. Kuala Lumpur, Ministry of Education.

Mizikaci, F. (2003). Quality systems and accreditation in higher education: an

overview of Turkish higher education. Quality in Higher Education. 9(1): 95-

106.

Mlczoch, M. (2002). Participation and Empowerment of unaccompanied minor

asylum seekers in Austria and the Netherlands. (Doctoral

dissertation).University of North London, U.K.

Mosadeghard, A. M. (2006). The impact of organizational culture on the successful

implementation of total quality management. The TQM Magazine. 18(6):

606-25.

Moses, I. (2007). Institutional Autonomy Revisited: Autonomy Justified and

Accounted. Higher Education Policy. 20: 261-274.

Mountjoy, M. S. (2001). Faculty perception of empowerment in private four-year

colleges (Doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.A.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Melnyk%20BM%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Fineout-Overholt%20E%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Giggleman%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Cruz%20R%22%5BAuthor%5D

javascript:AL_get(this,%20'jour',%20'Nurs%20Outlook.');

206

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization

linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New

York: Academic Press.

Nedd, N. (2006). Kanter's structural theory of organizational empowerment. Nursing

Econ., 24(1): 13-18.

Neuhauser,P. C. (2002). Building a high-retention culture in healthcare:15 ways to

get good people to stay. The Journal of Nursing Administration. 32(9): 470-

478.

Neumann, Y., & Finaly-Neumann, E. (1990). The reward-support framework and

faculty commitment to their university. Research in Higher Education, 31(1),

75-97.

Newman, F., Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004). The Future of Higher Education:

Rhetoric, Reality and the Risks of the Market: Jossey Bass.

Ning, S., Zhong, H., Libo, W., & Qiujie, L. (2009). The impact of nurse

empowerment on job satisfaction. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(12),

2642-2648.

Osborne, J. S. (2002). Components of empowerment and how they differentially

relate to employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to

leave the job. (Doctoral dissertation).Vanderbilt University, U.S.A.

Page, N., & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is it? Journal of Extension.

37(5): 1-7.

Park, J. S., Kim, T. H. (2009) Do types of organizational culture matter in nurse job

satisfaction and turnover intention?. Leadership in Health Services. 22(1):

20–38.

Patrick, A., Laschinger, H. K. S. (2006). The effect of structural empowerment and

perceived organizational support on middle level nurse managers’ role

satisfaction. Journal of Nurse Management. 14: 13-22.

Peters, T. & Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence. Sydney: Harper & Row.

Perkins, A. (2006). The relationship between social structure and sense of

empowerment for school personnel. (Doctoral dissertation).Michigan state

university, U.S.A.

Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and

application. American Journal of Community Psychology. 23(5): 569-579.

Phillips, E., Berg, M., Rodriguez, C., & Morgan, D. A Case Study of Participatory

Action Research in a Public New England Middle School: Empowerment,

207

Constraints and Challenges. American Journal of Community Psychology.

46(1): 179-194.

Prasad, A. (2001). Understanding workplace empowerment as inclusion: A historical

investigation of the discourse of difference in the United States. Applied

Behavioral Science. 37(1): 51-59.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and re sampling strategies for

assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.

Behavior Research Methods. 40: 879-891.

Quinn, R., & Spreitzer, G. (1997). The road to empowerment: seven questions every

leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics: 26(2): 37-49.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria:

Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis.

Management Science.29(3): 363–377.

Rappaport, Swift, C. & Hess. R. (1984). Studies in empowerment: steps toward

understanding and action. New York: Haworth Press.

Rappaport, J. (1984). Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issue. Prevention

in Human Services: 3: 1-7.

Reese, C. N. ( 2004). Leadership practices and empowerment strategies in associate

degree nursing program directors and the impact on the professional quality

of life, job satisfaction, and academic productivity of nursing faculty.

((Doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina, U.S.A.

Rhoades, L, & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of

the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology. 87: 698-714.

Rinehart, J. S., & Short, P. M. (1994). Job satisfaction and empowerment among

teacher leaders, reading recovery teachers and regular classroom teachers.

Education. 114(4): 570–580.

Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational Behavior (9, illustrated, revised ed.). New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Robbins, T. L., Crino, M. D., & Fredendall, L. D. (2002). An integrative model of

the empowerment process Human Resource Management Review. 12(3): 419-

443.

Rothstein, L.R. (1995). The empowerment effort that came undone. Harvard

Business Review. 73(1): 20-26

Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. U.S.A:

World Bank Publications.

208

Samad, S. (2007). Social structural characteristics and employee empowerment: The

role of proactive personality, International Review of Business Research

Papers. 3(4): 254-264.

Schein, E. H. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational

learning. Sloan Management Review 38(1): 234-256.

Schein, E.H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Ed., Jossey-Bass

Schlesinger, L.A. & Heskett, J.L. (1991). Breaking the cycle of failure in services.

Sloan Management Review. 32(3): 17-28.

Schneider, J., Dowling, M., & Raghuram, S. (2007). Empowerment as a success

factor in start-up companies. Review of Managerial Science. 1(2): 167-184.

Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner's guide to structural equation

modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R. & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the

next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance and

satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal. 47(3): 332-349.

Short, P.M. & Greer, J.T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools. themes from

innovative efforts. New Jersey: Merrill.

Short, P. M., Greer, J. T., & Melvin, W. M. (1994). Creating empowered schools:

Lessons in change. Journal of Educational Research, 32(4), 38–52.

Short, P. M., & Johnson, P. E. (1994). Exploring the links among teacher

empowerment, leader power, and conflict. Education. 114(4): 581-593.

Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). Empowerment within the school environment

school participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of. empowerment

within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement.

52(4): 951-961.

Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological

empowerment. Personnel Review. 29(6): 703-722.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy:

markets, state, and higher education: Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Smart J. C., & St. John, E. P. (1996). Organizational culture and effectiveness in

higher education: A test of the culture type and strong culture hypotheses.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 18(3): 219-241.

Smart, J. C. & Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty and academic environments: using

Holland's theory to explore differences in how faculty structure

209

undergraduate courses. Journal of College Student Development. 48(2): 183-

195.

Smith, L. M., Andrusyszyn, M. A., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2010). Effects of

workplace incivility and empowerment on newly-graduated nurses’

organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Management. 18(8): 1004-

1015.

Snyder, M. (2002). State of the profession: academic research and access to

information. Academe online (2002 issues).

Soranastaporn, S. (2001). The relationship between the power of department chairs

and faculty conflict, empowerment, and compliance at Mahidol University in

Thailand. (Doctoral dissertation). Illinois State University, U.S.A.

Sparrowe, R. T. (1994). Empowerment in the hospitality industry: An exploration of

antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research.

17(3): 51-73.

Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development

of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology.

13: 693-713.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and

consequences. Thousand Oaks, C.A: Sage publication.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,

measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal. 38(5): 1442-

1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological

empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a common ground in defining empowerment. In W.

A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds), Research in organizational change

and development. Vol. 10 (pp.31-62). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Spreitzer, G. M. (2006). Empowerment, In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (Vol.1). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Spreitzer, G. M., Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: the role

of psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational

Behavior. 20: 511–526.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of

the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness

satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management. 23(5): 679-704.

210

Strazzeri, L. (2005). Managing motivation and commitment versus compensation and

research institutions. OECD Conference in Trends in the Management of

Human Resources. Paris. August 2005.

Stock, G. N., McFadden, K. L., & Gowen, C. R. (2006). Organizational culture,

critical success factors and the reduction of hospital errors. International

Journal of Production Economics. 106: 368-92.

Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational

outcomes: Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle

schools. Educational Administration Quarterly. 36(5): 703–729.

Tannenbaum, R. (1968). Control in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tarmo, S. (2007). Changes in organizational culture in schools and readiness of

teachers for those changes. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability.

8: 5-13.

Teichler, U. (2007). Germany and beyond. new dynamics for the academic

profession, the changing conditions for academic work and career in select

countries, Werkstattberichte, S. 15-38

Tierney, W.G. (1999). Building the responsive campus: Creating high performance

colleges and universities. Thousand Oaks: Sage publication.

Tierney, W. G. (2008). Trust and organizational culture in higher education. Cultural

Perspectives on Higher Education. 1: 27-41.

Thibault, J. W., & Kelley, H. (1959). Control in organizations. New York: McGraw

Wiley.

Thomas, k., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive element of empowerment: An

interpretive model of intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Review

15(4): 666-681.

Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G., Jr. (1994). Does empowerment always work:

Understanding the role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation?

Journal of Management Systems. 6(2): 1-13.

Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Strengths,

limitations, and misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology.1: 31-

65.

Thompson, K. R., & Luthans, F. (1990). Organizational culture: A behavioral

perspective. In B. Schneider (Ed), Organizational climate and culture (pp.

319-344). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thompson T. L. (2003). Handbook of health communication. Communication Series.

New York, NY: Routledge.

http://versita.metapress.com/content/121379/?p=dfe80a838f284c9e9cfe1632a7371e30&pi=0

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=William+G.+Tierney

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=+inauthor:%22Teresa+L.+Thompson%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=10

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=+bibliogroup:%22LEA's+Communication+Series%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=10

211

Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Strengths,

limitations, and misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 1:

31-65.

Thorndyke, L.E., Gusic, M.E., George, J.H. , Quillen, D.A. & Milner, R.J. (2006).

Empowering junior faculty: Penn State's faculty development and mentoring

program. Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 81(7):

668-673.

Trivellas, P., & Dargenidou, D. (2009). Organizational culture, job satisfaction and

higher education service quality: The case of technological educational

institute of Larissa, The TQM Journal. 21 (4): 382-399.

Twati, J. M. & Gammack, J. G. (2006). The impact of organizational culture

innovation on the Adoption of IS/IT: The case of Libya. Journal of Enterprise

Information Management, 19(2): 175-191.

Tymon, W. G. Jr. (1988). An empirical investigation of a cognitive model of

empowerment. (Doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia.

Ugboro, I. O., & Obeng, K. (2000). Top management leadership, employee

empowerment, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction in TQM

organizations: an empirical study Journal of Quality Management 5(2), 247-

272.

Ugboro, I. O. (2006). Organizational commitment, job redesign, employee

empowerment and intent to quit among survivors of restructuring and

downsizing. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management. 7(3), 232-257.

Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty cultures and college teaching. In R.P. Perry and J.C.

Smart. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An

Evidence-Based Perspective. New York: Springer.

Vacharakiat, M. (2008). The relationships between empowerment, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment between Filipino and American registered

nurses working in the U.S.A. (Doctoral dissertation). George Mason

University, U.S.A.

Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). Person–organization fit: the match between

newcomers' and recruiters' preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel

Psychology. 53(1): 113-149.

Vogt, J. F., & Murrell, K. L. (1990). Empowerment in organizations: how to spark

exceptional performance. San Diego, CA: University Associates.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Jon Wiley & Sons.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Thorndyke%20LE%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Gusic%20ME%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22George%20JH%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Quillen%20DA%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Milner%20RJ%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471912050/bigdogsbowlofbis/

212

Wallach, E. (1983). Individuals and organization: the cultural match. Training and

Development Journal, 12(2), 28-35.

Wallach, V. A. & Mueller, C. W. (2006). Job characteristics and organizational

predictors of psychological empowerment among paraprofessionals within

human service organizations: An exploratory study. Journal of Administration

in Social Work. 30(1): 95-116.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations:

transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and

withdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies. International Journal of

Human Resource Management 14: 1083–1101.

Wan, E. (2005). Teacher empowerment as perceived by teachers in Hong Kong.

Teachers’ College Record. 107: 842-861.

Wang, H. C., Hwang, F. (2007). Study on organizational culture, organizational

commitment and attitude toward organizational reform comprehensive high

schools as example. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning. 3(2):

189-198.

Wang, G. & Lee, P. D. (2009). Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: an

analysis of interactive effects. Group Organization Management. 34(3): 271-

296

Weaver II, R. L., Mullins, D. G., Cotrell, H. W., & Michel, T. A. (1990). Faculty

dynamation: Guided empowerment Innovative Higher Education 14(2): 93-

105.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F. & Curran. P. J. (1995). Structural Equation Models with

Nonnormal Variables, in Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and

Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Wikinson, R., & Yussof, I. (2005). Public and private provision of higher education

in Malaysia: A comparative analysis. Higher Education. 50: 361-386.

Wilson, B., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (1994). Staff nurse perception of job

empowerment and organizational commitment. A test of Kanter's theory of

structural power in organizations. Journal of Nursing Administration. 24(4):

39-47.

Wiley, D. M. (1999). Impact of locus of control and empowerment on organizational

commitment. (Doctoral dissertation).United States International University,

U.S.A.

Winter-Collins, A. & McDaniel, A. (2000). Sense of belonging and new job graduate

satisfaction. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development. 16(3): 103-111.

213

Wood, F. (2005). National capacity, competitiveness and scientific excellence.

OECD Conference on Trends in the Management of Human Resources. Paris.

August 2005.

Womack, C. E., & Loyd, G. (2004). Quintessential leadership: leading by design

College Quarterly. 7(2): 1-11.

World Bank (2007). Empowerment in Practice: Analysis and Implementation A

World Bank Learning Module Washington. D.C.

Wu, F. Y. (2006). A study of leadership styles and foreign English teachers job

satisfaction in adult English cram schools of Taipei and Kaohsiung cities in

Taiwan. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Incarnate Word, U.S.A.

Wu, V., & Short, P. M. (1996). The relationship of empowerment to teacher job

commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 23(1):

85-89.

Yang, S. & Choi, S.O. (2009). Employee empowerment and team performance:

Autonomy, responsibility, information, and creativity Team Performance

Managemen.15 (5/6): 289-301.

Yiing, L. H., & Bin Ahmad. K. Z. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational

culture on the relationships between leadership behavior and organizational

commitment and between organizational commitment and job satisfaction

and performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 30(1):

53-86.

Zammuto, R., & Krakower, J. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of

organizational culture. In R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in

organizational change and development (pp. 83-114). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press Inc.

Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the

distinction between individual and psychological conceptions. American

Journal of Community Psychology. 18(1): 169-177.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1993). Research and development in management and higher

education: A personal explication. Occasional Paper No 2. The Tertiary

Education Institute. Brisbane: University of Queensland.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1994). Action research. in Professional development in higher

education: a theoretical framework for action research (pp. 290): New

Jersey: Routledge.

214

7 APPANDICES

215

7.1 APPENDIX A1: Demographic information sheet

Age:

Gender:

Male:

Female:

Typical number of hours worked per week: …………… hours

Academic Department: ………………………………………………..

How many years have you been at your current university?

……………………...Years

Approximate yearly gross personal income:

………………………RM

Approximate yearly gross family income:

……………………...RM

Faculty position/rank held: ………………………………………..

Demographic Information:

216

7.2 APPENDIX A2: Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire – II

Please circle one number for each question that comes closest to reflecting your

opinion about the university in which you work.

1) Very Strongly Disagree

2) Strongly Disagree

3) Disagree

4) Neutral

5) Agree

6) Strongly Agree

7) Very Strongly Agree

1 My work place is challenging

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 I have chance to gain new skills and

knowledge on the job.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 In my work place there are tasks that use all

of my own skills and knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 I have access to information about the

current state of the university.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 I have access to information about the

values of top management.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 I have access to information about the goals

of top management

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 My present job give me support to the

specific information about things I do well.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 My present job give me support to the

specific comments about things I could

improve.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 My present job gives me support to the

helpful hints or problem solving advice.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 There is time available to do necessary

paperwork.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 There is time available to accomplish job

requirements.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 I can acquire temporary help when needed

in my work place.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 In my work setting there are rewards for

innovation on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Structural Empowerment Instrument:

217

14 There are amount of flexibility in my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 There are amount of visibility of my work-

related activities within the institution.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 I have opportunity for collaborating on

students with lecturers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 I have opportunity for being sought out by

peers for help with problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 I have opportunity for being sought out by

administrators for help with problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 I have opportunity for seeking out ideas

from professionals other than lecturers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20 Overall, my current work environment

empowers me, accomplish in an effective

manner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 Overall, I consider my workplace to be an

empowering environment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

218

7.3 APPENDIX A3: Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument





3) Disagree

4) Neutral

5) Agree

6) Strongly Agree


1 The university is a very personal place. It

is like an extended family. People seem to

share a lot of themselves.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 The university is a very dynamic and

entrepreneurial place. People are willing

to stick their necks out and take risks.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 The university is very results-oriented. A

major concern is with getting the job

done. People are very competitive and

achievement-oriented.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 The university is a very controlled and

structured place. Formal procedures

generally govern what people do.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 The leadership in the university is

generally considered to exemplify

mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



entrepreneurship, innovating or risk

taking.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


generally considered to exemplify a no-

nonsense, aggressive results-oriented

focus.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



coordinating, organizing, or smooth-

running efficiency.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument

219

9 The management style in the university is

characterized by teamwork, consensus,

and participation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


characterized by individual risk-taking,

innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


characterized by hard-driving

competitiveness, high demands, and

achievement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


characterized by security of employment,

conformity, predictability, and stability in

relationships.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 The glue that holds the university together

is loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment

to this university runs high.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


is commitment to innovation and

development. There is an emphasis on

being on the cutting edge.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


is the emphasis on achievement and goal

accomplishment. Aggressiveness and

winning are common themes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


is formal rules and policies. Maintain a

smooth-running university is important.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 The university emphasized human

development. High trust, openness, and

participation persist.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 The university emphasizes acquiring new

resources and creating new challenges.

Trying new things and prospecting for

opportunities are valued.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 The university emphasizes competitive

actions and achievement. Hitting stretch

targets and wining in the marketplace are

dominants.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

220

20 The university emphasizes permanence

and stability. Efficiency, control and

smooth operations are important.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 The university defines success on the

basis of the development of human

resources, teamwork, employee

commitment, and concern for people.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


basis of having the most unique or newest

products. It is a product leader and

innovator.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


basis of winning in the marketplace and

out placing the competition.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 1. The university defines success on the

2. basis efficacy.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

221

7.4 APPENDIX A4: Faculty empowerment scale





3) Disagree

4) Neutral

5) Agree

6) Strongly Agree


1 3. I am given the responsibility to monitor

4. Programs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 5. I function in a professional environment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 6. I believe that I have earned respect. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 7. I believe that I am helping students

8. become independent learners.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 9. I have control over daily schedules. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 10. I believe that I have the ability to get

11. things done.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 12. I make decisions about the

13. implementation of new programs in

14. the department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 15. I am treated as a professional. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 16. I believe that I am very effective. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 17. I believe that I am empowering students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 18. I am able to teach as I choose. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 19. I participate in staff development. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 20. I make decisions about the selection of

21. other lecturers in my department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 22. I have the opportunity for professional

23. Growth.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 24. I have the respect of my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 25. I feel that I am involved in an important

26. program for students

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


222

17 27. I have the freedom to make decisions on

28. what is taught

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 29. I have the freedom to make decisions on

30. research topics.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 31. I believe that I am having an impact. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20 32. I am involved in department budget

33. decisions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 34. I work in a department where students

35. come first.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 36. I have the support and respect of my

37. colleagues.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 38. I see students learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 39. I make decisions about curriculum. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25 40. I am a decision maker. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 41. I am given the opportunity to teach other

42. academics.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 43. I am given the opportunity to continue

44. learning.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 45. I have a strong knowledge base in the

46. areas in which I teach.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29 47. I believe that I have the opportunity to

48. grow by working daily with student

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30 49. I believe that I have the opportunity to

50. influence other staff.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31 51. I can determine my own schedule. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32 52. I have the opportunity to collaborate with

53. other academics in my department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33 54. I perceive that I am making a difference. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34 55. Administrators and other academics solicit

56. my advice.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35 57. I believe I am good at what I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

36 58. I can plan my own schedule. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37 59. I perceive that I have an impact on other

60. academics and students.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38 61. My advice is solicited by other staffs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39 62. I have an opportunity to teach other

63. academics about innovative ideas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

223

7.5 APPENDIX A5: Job Satisfaction Survey





3) Disagree

4) Neutral

5) Agree

6) Strongly Agree


1 I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the

work I do.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 There is really too little chance for

promotion on my job.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 Head of department is quite competent in

doing his/her Job.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 I am not satisfied with the benefits I

receive.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 When I do a good job, I receive the

recognition for it that I should receive.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 Many of our rules and procedures make

doing a good job difficult.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 I like the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 Communications seem good with in this

department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 Raises are too few and far between. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 Those who do well on the job stand a fair

chance of being promoted.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 Head of department is unfair to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 The benefits we receive are as good as

most other organizations offer.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 I do not feel that the work I do is

appreciated.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 My efforts to do a good job are seldom

blocked by red tape.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


224

16 I find I have to work harder at my job

because of the incompetence of people I

work with.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 I like doing the things I do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 The goals of this university are not clear

to me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 I feel unappreciated by the university

when I think about what they pay me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20 People get ahead as fast here as they do in

other places.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 Head of department shows too little

interest in the feelings of academics.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 The benefit package we have is equitable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 There are few rewards for those who work

here.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 I have too much to do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25 I enjoy my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 I often feel that I do not know what is

going on with this department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 I feel satisfied with my chances for salary

increases.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29 There are benefits we do not have which

we should have.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30 I like Head of department. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31 I have too much paperwork. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32 I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the

way they should be.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33 I am satisfied with my chances for

promotion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34 There is too much bickering and fighting

at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35 My job is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

36 Work assignments are not fully explained. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

225

7.6 APPENDIX A6: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire





3) Disagree

4) Neutral

5) Agree

6) Strongly Agree


1 It would be very hard for me to leave

my department right now, even if I

wanted to.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 I do not feel any obligation to remain

with my current colleagues.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 I would be very happy to spend the rest

of my career with this department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 One of the few negative consequences

of leaving this department would be the

scarcity of available alternatives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 Even if it were to my advantage, I do

not feel it would be right to leave my

department now.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 I really feel as if this department’s

problems are my own.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 Right now, staying with my department

is a matter of necessity as much as

desire.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 I do not feel a strong sense of

"belonging" to my department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 I feel that I have too few options to

consider leaving this department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 I do not feel "emotionally attached" to

this department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 I would feel guilty if I left my

department now.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

226

12 I do not feel like "part of the family" at

my department.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 This university deserves my loyalty. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 If I had not already put so much of

myself into this department, I might

consider working elsewhere.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 I would not leave my department right

now because I have a sense of

obligation to the people in it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 This department has a great deal of

personal meaning for me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 Too much of my life would be

disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave

my department now.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 I owe a great deal to my department. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

227

7.7 APPENDIX B1: Assessment of normality (Group number1)

Variable min max skew c.r. kurtosis c.r.

jsf6 4.000 21.000 -.235 -1.455 -.545 -1.688

jsf5 4.000 28.000 -.071 -.437 .230 .711

jsf4 4.000 28.000 -.153 -.946 -.260 -.803

jsf2 14.000 35.000 -.252 -1.558 -.446 -1.380

jsf1 11.000 70.000 -.303 -1.875 -.439 -1.360

Sf4 1.000 7.000 -.381 -2.359 -.738 -2.285

Sf3 1.000 7.000 -.481 -2.981 -.422 -1.307

Sf2 1.000 7.000 -.588 -3.639 .056 .175

Sf1 1.000 7.000 -.855 -5.292 .636 1.967

Se3 1.000 7.000 -.634 -3.926 .211 .653

Se2 1.000 7.140 -.710 -4.399 .519 1.607

Se1 1.000 7.000 -.349 -2.162 -.872 -2.700

Sb3 1.000 7.000 -.380 -2.351 -.586 -1.815

Sb2 1.000 7.000 -.625 -3.868 -.451 -1.396

Sb1 1.000 7.000 -.859 -5.318 .264 .819

Sd3 1.000 7.000 -1.073 -6.645 1.377 4.261

Sd2 1.000 7.000 -.944 -5.843 .696 2.154

Sd1 1.000 7.000 -.616 -3.815 -.455 -1.407

Sc3 1.000 7.000 -.453 -2.806 -.076 -.236

Sc2 1.000 7.000 -.519 -3.212 -.222 -.686

Sc1 1.000 7.000 -.413 -2.559 -.253 -.784

Sa3 1.000 7.002 -1.243 -7.694 1.842 5.703

Sa2 1.000 7.000 -.993 -6.150 1.434 4.439

Sa1 1.000 7.000 -.663 -4.104 -.297 -.920

Cf1 1.000 7.000 -.402 -2.489 -.359 -1.111

Ce1 1.000 7.000 -.484 -2.999 -.459 -1.422

Cd1 1.000 7.000 -.540 -3.342 .095 .295

Cc1 1.000 7.000 -.229 -1.421 -.693 -2.147

Cb1 1.000 7.000 -.416 -2.579 -.742 -2.295

Ca1 1.000 7.000 -.533 -3.302 -.501 -1.550

IM1 2.000 14.000 -.673 -4.169 .715 2.214

IM2 4.000 14.000 -.412 -2.553 -.158 -.489

SS1 10.000 21.000 -.412 -2.552 -.117 -.362

SS2 9.000 21.000 -.504 -3.119 .478 1.481

AT1 2.000 14.000 -.568 -3.514 -.121 -.374

AT2 2.000 14.000 -.869 -5.381 .830 2.568

ST1 6.000 14.000 -.683 -4.231 .815 2.522

ST2 5.000 14.000 -.655 -4.053 .585 1.812

PG1 4.000 20.000 -.588 -3.640 -.199 -.616

PG2 6.000 21.000 -.736 -4.554 .561 1.737

DC1 5.000 27.000 -.490 -3.034 -.376 -1.163

DC2 3.000 21.000 -.580 -3.589 -.130 -.404

228

Variable min max skew c.r. kurtosis c.r.

dc3 3.000 20.000 -.221 -1.366 -.539 -1.670

O18 1.000 7.000 -.521 -3.224 -.195 -.605

O15 1.000 7.000 -.925 -5.729 .518 1.603

O13 1.000 7.000 -.538 -3.332 -.015 -.045

O5 1.000 7.000 -.491 -3.037 -.421 -1.304

O2 1.000 7.000 -.293 -1.816 -.826 -2.558

O16 1.000 7.000 -.784 -4.853 .462 1.432

O12 1.000 7.000 -.564 -3.495 -.300 -.930

O10 1.000 7.000 -.857 -5.309 .119 .367

O8 1.000 7.000 -.716 -4.435 .209 .648

O6 1.000 7.000 -.616 -3.811 .397 1.229

O3 1.000 7.352 -.601 -3.722 -.575 -1.779

Multivariate

518.304 50.537

229

7.8 APPENDIX B2: (Mahalanobis distance) (Group number1)

Observation number Mahalanobis d-squared p1 p2

115 140.481 .000 .000

82 128.181 .000 .000

42 125.525 .000 .000

94 119.663 .000 .000

58 117.924 .000 .000

45 116.099 .000 .000

80 113.285 .000 .000

101 112.712 .000 .000

60 110.793 .000 .000

36 107.209 .000 .000

9 106.148 .000 .000

100 103.113 .000 .000

61 102.606 .000 .000

10 98.713 .000 .000

124 98.330 .000 .000

127 97.568 .000 .000

139 97.265 .000 .000

19 97.246 .000 .000

97 94.626 .001 .000

68 93.458 .001 .000

46 89.920 .002 .000

149 88.286 .002 .000

11 87.911 .002 .000

53 86.622 .003 .000

17 86.267 .003 .000

6 85.934 .004 .000

48 85.708 .004 .000

186 85.432 .004 .000

151 81.934 .008 .000

183 81.819 .009 .000

14 80.699 .011 .000

150 80.580 .011 .000

18 80.449 .011 .000

12 80.411 .011 .000

62 79.994 .012 .000

24 79.918 .013 .000

4 79.654 .013 .000

198 79.654 .013 .000

106 76.200 .025 .000

105 75.076 .030 .000

76 74.994 .031 .000

130 74.815 .032 .000

230


99 73.922 .037 .000

54 72.705 .046 .000

47 71.923 .052 .000

160 70.034 .070 .000

211 69.629 .075 .000

85 69.629 .075 .000

15 69.125 .081 .000

157 68.975 .082 .000

96 68.535 .088 .000

21 68.452 .089 .000

181 66.218 .123 .000

173 65.797 .130 .000

144 65.797 .130 .000

64 65.455 .137 .000

57 65.077 .144 .000

188 64.971 .146 .000

179 64.818 .149 .000

75 64.709 .151 .000

195 64.695 .151 .000

1 64.695 .151 .000

191 63.414 .178 .000

27 62.919 .190 .001

216 62.761 .194 .001

107 62.761 .194 .000

103 62.759 .194 .000

110 62.716 .195 .000

219 62.716 .195 .000

69 62.148 .209 .000

184 61.647 .221 .001

59 61.647 .221 .001

140 61.528 .225 .001

122 61.419 .228 .001

206 61.147 .235 .001

70 61.147 .235 .001

55 60.038 .266 .013

79 60.037 .266 .009

197 60.008 .267 .006

3 60.008 .267 .004

192 59.773 .274 .006

117 59.535 .281 .008

164 59.535 .281 .005

95 59.322 .288 .007

13 58.966 .299 .013

155 58.471 .315 .033

231


90 58.188 .324 .047

137 57.200 .357 .230

226 57.200 .357 .191

20 57.106 .360 .182

205 56.821 .370 .233

35 56.821 .370 .194

152 56.724 .374 .187

66 56.668 .376 .168

38 56.496 .382 .183

109 56.439 .384 .165

218 56.439 .384 .133

185 56.412 .385 .112

56 56.412 .385 .089

147 56.231 .391 .100

232

OPPORTUNITY

INFORMATION

SUPPORT

RESOURCES

FORMAL POWER

INFORMAL POWER

Sa2

e1

E2

e3

e4

e5

e8

e10

e12

e13

e14

e11

e7

e9

e6

e15

e16

e17

e18

e19

Sa1

Sa3

Sb1

Sb2

Sb3

Sc1

Sc2

Sc3

Sd1

Sd2

Sd3

Se1

Se2

Se3

Sf1

Sf2

Sf3

Sf4

.60

.61

.55

.70

.91

.91

.86

.93

.87

.69

.79

.86

.75

.57

.74

.65

.77

.83

.77

.55

.64 .62

.56

.52

.82

.47

.78

.71

.79

.81

.80

.77

.54

.79

7.9 APPENDIX C1: First-order CFA of Structural Empowerment

233

CLAN CULTURE

ADHOCRACY

CULTURE

MARKET

CULTURE

HIERARCHY

CULTURE

Cb1

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e8

e10

e12

e13

e14

e11

e7

e9

e6

e15

e18

e19

e20

e21

Ca1

Cc1

Cd1

Ce1

Cf1

Ca2

Cb2

Cc2

Cd2

Ce2

Cf2

Ca3

Cc3

Cd3

Cb4

Cc4

Ce4

Cf4

.65

.87

.91

.86

.89

.81

.76

.73

.70

.52

.78

.66

.51

.53

Ce3

Cf3

e16

e17

.87

.62

.83

.80

.77

.80

.77

.69

.78

.81

.68

.83

.84

7.10 APPENDIX C2: First-order CFA of Organizational Culture

234

DECISION MAKING

DC3

DC1

DC2

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH

PG1

PG2

STATUS

ST1

ST2

SELF-EFFICACY

SS2

SS1

AUTONOMY

IMPACT

AU1

AU2

IM1

IM2

e4

e5

e6

e12

e13

e18

e19

e22

e23

e31

e32

e28

e27

.96

.75

.88

.86

.82

.67

.86

.67

.86

.69

.71

.77

.76

.88

.89

.90

.86

.94

.62

.66

.75

.96

.85

.76

.93

.71

.81

.93

7.11 APPENDIX C3: First-order CFA of Psychological Empowerment

235

PAY

J1

J10

J19

J11

J3

J33

J20

J28

SUPERVISION

J12

J21

J30

J4

FRIDGE BENEFITS

J29

J5

J23CONTIGENT

REWARDS

J32

J6

J15

J14

J24

COWORKERS

NATURE OF

WORK

J31

J7

J16

J25

J8

J27

J17

e9

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e10

e11

e12

e13J13

e15

e16

e17

e18

e19

e21

e20

e22

e25

e26

e28

e29

e30

e23

e24

J22 e14

.55

.77

.51

.79

.46

.75

.75

.63

.70

.57

PROMOTION

OPERATING

CONDITIONS

J34 e27

COMMINUCATION

J18

J9

e31

e32

J26 e33

.77

.52

.75

.59

.57

.64

.52

.50

.68

.72

.72

.93

.90

.52

.85

.53

.80

.73

.71

.63

.71

.51

.76

.67

.55

.56

.18

.77

.47

.59

.50

.64

.11

.22

.19

.52

.13

.17

.14

.38

.10

.56

.23

.15

..20

.18

.10

.15

.11

.86

.54

.88

.89

.28

.87

.97

.26

.83

.37

7.12 APPENDIX C4: First-order CFA of Job Satisfaction

236


NORMATIVECOMMITMENT

O3

O6

O8

O10

O12

O16

O2

O13

O15

O18

O5

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

.62

.63

.68

.70

.66

.59

.58

.62

.69

.55

.50

.92

7.13 APPENDIX C5: First-order CFA of Organizational Commitment

237

7.14 APPENDIX C6: Measurement model (base line model)

.46 SA

Sa3 .94

e

3 1.00 1 Sa2

.78 e

2 1.03 1 Sa1

1.58 e

1 .80 1

2.0

2 SB Sb3

.44 e

6 1.00 1 Sb2

.41 e

5 1.01 1 Sb1

.99 e

4 .70 1

1.42 S

C Sc

3

.48 e9

1.00 1 Sc

2

.28 e8 1.10 1 Sc

1

.56 e7 1.07 1

1.14 SD

Sd3 .53

e12 1.00 1 Sd2

.96 e11 .77 1 Sd1

1.4

9 e10 .79 1

.88 SE

Se3 .89

e15 1.0

0 1 Se2 .88

e14 .71 1 Se1 1.1

7 e13 1.44 1

1.52 S

F Sf4 1.0

1 e19 1.00

1 Sf3 .75

e18 .99 1 Sf2

.79 e17 .88 1 Sf1

.89 e16 .70

1

1.43 CA

Cf1 .78

e25

1.00 1 Ce1 .53

e24 1.17

1 Cd1 .46

e23 .99 1 Cc1

.41 e22 1.24 1 Cb1

.61 e21 1.11

1 Ca1 1.36

e20 .85

1

1.44 AH

Cf2 .93

e31

1.00 1 Ce2 .86

e30 1.00

1 Cd2 .57

e29 .98 1 Cc2

1.27 e28 .74 1 Cb2

.54 e27 1.02

1 Ca2 .72

e26 .86

1

1.54 MA

Cf3 1.13

e36 1.00

1 Ce3 .82

e35 .97 1 Cd3

1.48 e34 .60 1 Cc3

.96 e33 .80 1 Ca3

1.08 e32

.89 1

.39 HI

Cf4 1.36

e40 1.00

1 Ce4 1.27

e39 1.01 1 Cc4

1.17 e38 1.64 1 Cb4

.76 e37 1.56

1

11.62 DC

dc3 2.63

e43 1.00 1 DC2

3.25 e42 1.02 1 DC1

7.17 e41 1.10 1

1.90 ST

ST2 1.53

e47 1.00 1 ST1

1.02 e46 .96 1

6.86 P

G PG2

3.05 e45

1.00 1 PG1 5.33

e44 1.02 1

4.35 SS

SS2 1.43

e49 1.00 1 SS1

2.02 e48 .95 1

2.91 IM

IM2 1.93

e53 1.00 1 IM1

2.08 e52 1.06 1

1.85 AT

AT2 3.30

e51 1.00 1 AT1

1.90 e50 1.62 1

.83 NC

O18 1.53

e58 1.0

0 1 O15 1.39

e57 1.01 1 O13

1.04 e56 1.14 1 O5

2.24 e55 .60 1 O2

1.87 e54

1.11 1

.73 AC

O16 1.35

e63

1.0

0 1 O12 1.49

e62 1.25

1 O10 1.24

e61 1.29 1 O8

1.14 e60 1.20 1 O6

1.09 e69 1.03

1 O3 1.96

e59 1.17

1

6.01 JS 1.00

1 jsf5 10.44

e67 1.31 1 jsf4

14.32 e66 1.12 1 jsf2

12.47 e65 1.05 1 jsf1

97.99 e64

2.35 1

.54 .62

.43

.49

.66

.60

.6

6

.72

.33

2.06 1.74

.75 1.21

.63 1.11

.44

.32

.68

1.06

.91

1.08

1.24

1.11

1.10

.85

.62

2.84 2.5

6 1.12 .90

1.03 1.24

.77

.34

1.45

.78

.90

1.16

1.01

.96

.91

2.4

1

.58

2.2

3 1.08 1.25

.82 1.32

.6

6

.33

1.25

.5

8 .72

.69

.64

.37

.43

1.27 1.67

.91 .72

.62 .97

.73

.50

1.4

3

.94

.96

.92

.84

.50

1.99 1.90

.84 .69

.60 .91

.52

.32

1.16

1.15

1.14

1.08

.62

2.82 2.70

1.26

1.52

.73

.46

1.12

1.37

1.15

.79

2.85 2.58

1.08 1.10

.92 1.38

.81

.44

1.52

1.37

.7

2 2.75

2.53 1.1

1 1.13 .94

.87

.44

1.29

.65

2.62 2.41

.96 1.15

.84 1.31

.66

.25

.90

1.69 1.45

.56 .55

.50

.4

1

.20

.90

7.95 2.77

4.1

3 3.85 5.57

1.48

.93

2.96

3.58 4.55

2.82 4.36

1.83

1.15

4.60

2.52 1.37

1.89

.98

.70

2.44

2.07 3.15

.88

.75

2.16

2.13

.58

.44

1.13

1.01

.75

1.72 .68

1.63

1.47

1.04

.80

1.39

.76

238

7.15 APPENDIX D1: Correlations: (default model)

Estimate

SE <--> clan .785

clan <--> adhoc .786

adhoc <--> market .883

market <--> heirach .716

PE <--> heirach .714

PE <--> JS .580

JS <--> COMI .718

SE <--> adhoc .753

SE <--> market .732

SE <--> heirach .787

SE <--> PE .776

SE <--> JS .593

SE <--> COMI .677

clan <--> market .762

clan <--> heirach .786

PE <--> clan .706

JS <--> clan .583

COMI <--> clan .662

COMI <--> adhoc .701

COMI <--> market .491

JS <--> heirach .614

PE <--> market .643

COMI <--> heirach .607

PE <--> COMI .568

PE <--> adhoc .710

JS <--> adhoc .489

adhoc <--> heirach .799

JS <--> market .356

239

7.16 APPENDIX D2: Baseline first model fit

Model Fit Summary

CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Default model 310 7461.663 2105 .000 3.545

Saturated model 2415 .000 0

Independence model 69 17346.884 2346 .000 7.394

RMR, GFI

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model .969 .538 .470 .469

Saturated model .000 1.000

Independence model 2.271 .094 .067 .091

Baseline Comparisons

Model NFI

Delta1

RFI

rho1

IFI

Delta2

TLI

rho2 CFI

Default model .570 .521 .649 .602 .643

Saturated model 1.000

1.000

1.000

Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Parsimony-Adjusted Measures

Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI

Default model .897 .511 .577

Saturated model .000 .000 .000

Independence model 1.000 .000 .000

NCP

Model NCP LO 90 HI 90

Default model 5356.663 5096.766 5623.475

240



Independence model 15000.884 14585.808 15422.542

FMIN

Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90

Default model 32.584 23.392 22.257 24.557

Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000

Independence model 75.751 65.506 63.693 67.347

RMSEA

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model .105 .103 .108 .000

Independence model .167 .165 .169 .000

AIC

Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC

Default model 8081.663 8354.619 9147.467 9457.467

Saturated model 4830.000 6956.415 13132.962 15547.962


ECVI

Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI

Default model 35.291 34.156 36.456 36.483

Saturated model 21.092 21.092 21.092 30.377


HOELTER

Model HOELTER

.05

HOELTER

.01

Default model 68 70

241

Model HOELTER

.05

HOELTER

.01

Independence model 33 34

242

7.17 APPENDIX D3: Correlations (default model)

Estimate

SE <--> clanc .742

PE <--> JS .507

JS <--> COMI .606

SE <--> PE .732

SE <--> JS .480

SE <--> COMI .649

PE <--> clanc .704

JS <--> clanc .465

COMI <--> clanc .647

PE <--> COMI .587

clanc <--> adhocc .763

adhocc <--> heirachc .784

PE <--> heirachc .746

PE <--> adhocc .712

clanc <--> heirachc .786

SE <--> adhocc .764

SE <--> heirachc .790

JS <--> adhocc .637

COMI <--> adhocc .649

JS <--> heirachc .515

COMI <--> heirachc .626

243

7.18 APPENDIX D4: Respecified model fit

Model Fit Summary

CMIN


Default model 117 924.256 348 .000 2.656



RMR, GFI


Default model 1.593 .803 .737 .601




Model NFI

Delta1

RFI

rho1

IFI

Delta2

TLI

rho2 CFI

Default model .856 .819 .905 .879 .903


1.000

1.000







NCP


Default model 576.256 489.943 670.225

244




FMIN


Default model 4.036 2.516 2.139 2.927



RMSEA


Default model .085 .078 .092 .000


AIC


Default model 1158.256 1194.892 1560.511 1677.511

Saturated model 930.000 1075.606 2528.707 2993.707


ECVI


Default model 5.058 4.681 5.468 5.218

Saturated model 4.061 4.061 4.061 4.697


HOELTER

Model HOELTER

.05

HOELTER

.01

Default model 98 103

245

Model HOELTER

.05

HOELTER

.01


246

7.19 APPENDIX D5: Standardized Regression Weights: (default model)

Estimate

informt <--- SE .803

formt <--- SE .757

resorct <--- SE .825

supt <--- SE .857

infot <--- SE .778

oppt <--- SE .819

Cf1 <--- clanc .881

Ce1 <--- clanc .927

Cd1 <--- clanc .845

Cc1 <--- clanc .688

Cb1 <--- clanc .868

Ca1 <--- clanc .790

Cc3 <--- adhocc .754

Cf2 <--- adhocc .750

Cd2 <--- adhocc .811

Cb2 <--- adhocc .863

Ca2 <--- adhocc .758

Cf4 <--- hierchc .789

Ce4 <--- hierchc .799

Cc4 <--- hierchc .894

Cb4 <--- hierchc .867

imt <--- PE .872

att <--- PE .696

sset <--- PE .794

stt <--- PE .849

proft <--- PE .886

dct <--- PE .839

normt <--- COM .988

afft <--- COM .724

jsf6 <--- JS .776

jsf5 <--- JS .724

jsf4 <--- JS .680

jsf2 <--- JS .615

jsf1 <--- JS .781

Ce3 <--- adhocc .715

Cc2 <--- adhocc .836

Ce2 <--- adhocc .787

Ca3 <--- adhocc .715

247

7.20 APPENDIX D6 Baseline Model Fit Summary

CMIN


Default model 100 721.274 251 .000 2.874

direct model 98 738.174 253 .000 2.918



RMR, GFI


Default model 2.397 .813 .739 .581

direct model 2.740 .810 .737 .584




Model NFI

Delta1

RFI

rho1

IFI

Delta2

TLI

rho2 CFI

Default model .862 .822 .906 .876 .904

direct model .859 .819 .903 .873 .901


1.000

1.000





direct model .778 .669 .702



NCP

248


Default model 470.274 393.760 554.424

direct model 485.174 407.594 570.386



FMIN


Default model 3.150 2.054 1.719 2.421

direct model 3.223 2.119 1.780 2.491



RMSEA


Default model .090 .083 .098 .000

direct model .092 .084 .099 .000


AIC


Default model 921.274 948.007 1265.082 1365.082

direct model 934.174 960.372 1271.105 1369.105

Saturated model 702.000 795.832 1908.766 2259.766


ECVI


Default model 4.023 3.689 4.390 4.140

direct model 4.079 3.741 4.451 4.194

249


Saturated model 3.066 3.066 3.066 3.475


HOELTER

Model HOELTER

.05

HOELTER

.01

Default model 92 98

direct model 91 96


250

7.21 APPENDIX E1: Regression Weights: (direct model)

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

PE <--- clanc .364 .145 3.286 .007

PE <--- SE .754 .114 6.601 ***

PE <--- hirachc -.082 .231 .529 .597

PE <--- adhocc .130 .126 1.237 .312

JS <--- PE .000

COM <--- PE .000

COM <--- SE .646 .192 3.368 ***

JS <--- SE .367 .098 3.729 ***

JS <--- clanc .292 .136 2.411 .048

JS <--- hirachc -.159 .222 .714 .475

COM <--- hirachc -.121 .538 2.085 .067

JS <--- adhocc .222 .113 1.958 .056

COM <--- adhocc .227 .233 .976 .329

COM <--- clanc .420 .311 4.347 .008

informt <--- SE 1.000

formt <--- SE .787 .053 14.791 ***

resorct <--- SE .535 .059 9.119 ***

supt <--- SE .949 .059 16.053 ***

infot <--- SE 1.000

oppt <--- SE .380 .033 11.529 ***

imt <--- PE 1.000

att <--- PE .846 .069 12.239 ***

sset <--- PE .744 .052 14.419 ***

stt <--- PE .728 .058 12.539 ***

proft <--- PE 1.454 .084 17.313 ***

dct <--- PE 2.758 .132 20.873 ***

afft <--- COM 1.000

jsf6 <--- JS 1.000

jsf5 <--- JS 1.141 .135 8.434 ***

jsf4 <--- JS 1.102 .170 6.469 ***

jsf2 <--- JS 1.254 .178 7.028 ***

jsf1 <--- JS 3.484 .491 7.103 ***

normt <--- COM .945 .085 11.112 ***

cll2 <--- clanc 1.000

cll1 <--- clanc 1.057 .043 24.788 ***

hri22 <--- hirachc 1.000

hri12 <--- hirachc .990 .087 11.400 ***

adh3 <--- adhocc 1.000

adh2 <--- adhocc .957 .054 17.654 ***

adh1 <--- adhocc .855 .050 17.158 ***

251

7.22 APPENDIX E2: Standardized Regression Weights: (direct model)

Estimate

PE <--- clanc .368

PE <--- SE .736

PE <--- hirachc -.058

PE <--- adhocc .115

JS <--- PE .000

COM <--- PE .000

COM <--- SE .476

JS <--- SE .565

JS <--- clanc .318

JS <--- hirachc -.143

COM <--- hirachc -.197

JS <--- adhocc .243

COM <--- adhocc .168

COM <--- clanc .513


formt <--- SE .784


supt <--- SE .823

infot <--- SE .793

oppt <--- SE .696

imt <--- PE .864

att <--- PE .698

sset <--- PE .773

stt <--- PE .817

proft <--- PE .881

dct <--- PE .860

afft <--- COM .709

jsf6 <--- JS .578

jsf5 <--- JS .558

jsf4 <--- JS .523

jsf2 <--- JS .638

jsf1 <--- JS .674

normt <--- COM .968

cll2 <--- clanc .924

cll1 <--- clanc .945

hri22 <--- hirachc .703

hri12 <--- hirachc .721

adh3 <--- adhocc .833

252

7.23 APPENDIX E3: Modified model (Model Fit Summary of Direct Model)

CMIN


Default model 81 690.036 244 .000 2.828

full mediated effect 77 738.645 248 .000 2.978

partial mediated model 81 690.036 244 .000 2.828

Direct model 79 697.856 246 .000 2.837



RMR, GFI


Default model 1.502 .810 .747 .608

full mediated effect 1.836 .801 .739 .611

partial mediated model 1.502 .810 .747 .608

Direct model 1.867 .809 .748 .613




Model NFI

Delta1

RFI

rho1

IFI

Delta2

TLI

rho2 CFI

Default model .857 .824 .902 .878 .901

full mediated effect .846 .814 .892 .868 .891

partial mediated model .857 .824 .902 .878 .901

Direct model .855 .823 .901 .878 .900


1.000

1.000


253




full mediated effect .827 .700 .737

partial mediated model .813 .697 .733

Direct model .820 .701 .738



NCP


Default model 446.036 371.413 528.297

full mediated effect 490.645 412.861 576.051

partial mediated model 446.036 371.413 528.297

Direct model 451.856 376.765 534.587



FMIN


Default model 3.013 1.948 1.622 2.307

full mediated effect 3.226 2.143 1.803 2.516

partial mediated model 3.013 1.948 1.622 2.307

Direct model 3.047 1.973 1.645 2.334



RMSEA

254


Default model .089 .082 .097 .000

full mediated effect .093 .085 .101 .000

partial mediated model .089 .082 .097 .000

Direct model .090 .082 .097 .000


AIC


Default model 852.036 872.784 1130.520 1211.520



Direct model 855.856 876.093 1127.465 1206.465

Saturated model 650.000 733.251 1767.376 2092.376


ECVI


Default model 3.721 3.395 4.080 3.811



Direct model 3.737 3.409 4.099 3.826

Saturated model 2.838 2.838 2.838 3.202


HOELTER

Model HOELTER

.05

HOELTER

.01

Default model 94 99

255

Model HOELTER

.05

HOELTER

.01

full mediated effect 89 94

partial mediated model 94 99

Direct model 94 99


256

7.24 APPENDIX E4: Standardized Regression Weights: (Direct model)

Estimate

PE <--- SE .698

PE <--- clan .310

JS <--- PE .000

COMI <--- PE .000

COMI <--- SE .372

JS <--- SE .359

JS <--- clan .217

COMI <--- clan .345

oppt <--- SE .705

infot <--- SE .764

supt <--- SE .829


formt <--- SE .791


imt <--- PE .884

att <--- PE .722

sset <--- PE .808

stt <--- PE .749

proft <--- PE .845

dct <--- PE .880

afft <--- COMI .699

normt <--- COMI .963

jsf2 <--- JS .603

jsf4 <--- JS .584

jsf5 <--- JS .703

jsf6 <--- JS .723

jsf1 <--- JS 1.005

Cc1 <--- culture .934

Cb1 <--- culture .841

Ca1 <--- culture .673

Cd1 <--- culture .861

Ce1 <--- culture .879

Cf1 <--- culture .791

257

7.25 APPENDIX E5: Regression Weights: (Direct model)


PE <--- SE 1.859 .324 5.735 *** xb1

PE <--- clan 1.262 .260 2.008 .043 xa1

JS <--- PE .000

COMI <--- PE .000

COMI <--- SE 1.256 .447 2.807 .005 xc4

JS <--- SE 3.061 .942 3.250 *** xc2

JS <--- clan 1.656 .802 2.064 . 039 xc1

COMI <--- clan 1.038 .387 2.681 .007 xc3

oppt <--- SE 1.000

infot <--- SE 2.314 .237 9.778 *** par_7

supt <--- SE 2.431 .203 11.976 *** par_8

resorct <--- SE 1.368 .170 8.041 *** par_9

formt <--- SE 2.019 .176 11.446 *** par_10

informt <--- SE 2.794 .241 11.577 *** par_11

imt <--- PE 1.000

att <--- PE .855 .063 13.515 *** par_12

sset <--- PE .753 .046 16.457 *** par_13

stt <--- PE .659 .047 14.069 *** par_14

proft <--- PE 1.342 .075 17.984 *** par_15

dct <--- PE 2.732 .142 19.257 *** par_16

afft <--- COMI 1.000

normt <--- COMI .963 .091 10.582 *** par_17

jsf2 <--- JS .222 .036 6.244 *** par_18

jsf4 <--- JS .241 .038 6.319 *** par_19

jsf5 <--- JS .276 .040 6.915 *** par_20

jsf6 <--- JS .241 .034 7.045 *** par_21

jsf1 <--- JS 1.000

Cc1 <--- culture 1.000

Cb1 <--- culture .862 .044 19.518 *** par_22

Ca1 <--- culture .690 .053 13.040 *** par_23

Cd1 <--- culture .776 .037 20.849 *** par_25

Ce1 <--- culture .919 .041 22.287 *** par_26

Cf1 <--- culture .784 .045 17.371 *** par_27

258

7.26 APPENDIX E6: Assuming model Default model to be correct:

Model DF CMIN P NFI

Delta-1

IFI

Delta-2

RFI

rho-1

TLI

rho2

full mediated effect 4 48.609 .000 .010 .011 .009 .010

Direct model 2 7.821 .020 .002 .002 .001 .001

259

7.27 APPENDIX E7: Regression Weights: (Default model)


PE <--- SE 1.723 .308 5.601 *** xb1

PE <--- clan 1.109 .353 2.305 .028 xa1

JS <--- PE 1.338 .264 5.077 *** xa2

COMI <--- PE .967 .128 2.885 .049 xb2

JS <--- clan 1.175 .202 1.173 .051 xc1

COMI <--- clan 1.124 .529 2.124 .004 xc3

COMI <--- SE 1.012 .493 1.869 .037 xc4

JS <--- SE 1.146 .946 2.498 .026 xc2

oppt <--- SE 1.000

infot <--- SE 2.303 .234 9.846 *** par_9

supt <--- SE 2.434 .204 11.961 *** par_10

resorct <--- SE 1.340 .169 7.931 *** par_11

formt <--- SE 2.031 .177 11.483 *** par_12

informt <--- SE 2.847 .245 11.636 *** par_13

imt <--- PE 1.000

att <--- PE .853 .072 11.844 *** par_14

sset <--- PE .756 .053 14.152 *** par_15

stt <--- PE .788 .057 13.723 *** par_16

proft <--- PE 1.519 .087 17.456 *** par_17

dct <--- PE 2.629 .137 19.244 *** par_18

afft <--- COMI 1.000

normt <--- COMI .945 .092 10.277 *** par_19

Cb1 <--- culture 1.236 .106 11.649 *** par_20

Ca1 <--- culture 1.000

jsf2 <--- JS .297 .047 6.293 *** par_21

jsf4 <--- JS .248 .040 6.191 *** par_22

jsf5 <--- JS .243 .039 6.250 *** par_23

jsf6 <--- JS .237 .034 6.970 *** par_24

jsf1 <--- JS 1.000

Cc1 <--- culture 1.441 .113 12.787 *** par_25

Cd1 <--- culture 1.141 .095 12.006 *** par_28

Ce1 <--- culture 1.330 .109 12.185 *** par_29

Cf1 <--- culture 1.131 .100 11.269 *** par_30

260

7.28 APPENDIX E8: Standardized Regression Weights: (Default model)

Estimate

PE <--- SE .680

PE <--- culture .227

JS <--- PE .530

COMI <--- PE .280

JS <--- culture .201

COMI <--- culture .263

COMI <--- SE .245

JS <--- SE .212

oppt <--- SE .703

infot <--- SE .762

supt <--- SE .832


formt <--- SE .797


imt <--- PE .846

att <--- PE .687

sset <--- PE .774

stt <--- PE .844

proft <--- PE .899

dct <--- PE .813

afft <--- COMI .702

normt <--- COMI .932

Cb1 <--- culture .839

Ca1 <--- culture .676

jsf2 <--- JS .592

jsf4 <--- JS .459

jsf5 <--- JS .469

jsf6 <--- JS .532

jsf1 <--- JS .752

Cc1 <--- culture .936

Cd1 <--- culture .868

Ce1 <--- culture .884

Cf1 <--- culture .798

261

7.29 APPENDIX F1: Standardized Indirect Effects (Default model)

clan SE PE JS COMI

PE .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

JS .170 .360 .000 .000 .000

COMI .163 .190 .000 .000 .000

Cf1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Ce1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Cd1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Ca1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Cb1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Cc1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

jsf6 .180 .226 .160 .000 .000

jsf5 .173 .218 .154 .000 .000

jsf4 .147 .185 .131 .000 .000

jsf2 .151 .190 .134 .000 .000

jsf1 .258 .326 .230 .000 .000

normt .349 .338 .095 .000 .000

afft .253 .244 .069 .000 .000

dct .111 .596 .000 .000 .000

proft .107 .577 .000 .000 .000

stt .096 .513 .000 .000 .000

sset .102 .547 .000 .000 .000

att .091 .488 .000 .000 .000

imt .111 .597 .000 .000 .000

informt .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

formt .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

resorct .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

supt .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

infot .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

oppt .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

262

7.30 APPENDIX F2: Standardized Indirect Effects - Two Tailed Significance

clan SE PE JS COMI

PE ... ... ... ... ...

JS .023 .001 ... ... ...

COMI .048 .001 ... ... ...

Cf1 ... ... ... ... ...

Ce1 ... ... ... ... ...

Cd1 ... ... ... ... ...

Ca1 ... ... ... ... ...

Cb1 ... ... ... ... ...

Cc1 ... ... ... ... ...

jsf6 .015 .004 .009 ... ...

jsf5 .016 .004 .009 ... ...

jsf4 .013 .004 .008 ... ...

jsf2 .013 .004 .009 ... ...

jsf1 .013 .005 .011 ... ...

normt .006 .015 .325 ... ...

afft .005 .013 .320 ... ...

dct .285 .001 ... ... ...

proft .286 .001 ... ... ...

stt .293 .001 ... ... ...

sset .290 .001 ... ... ...

att .288 .001 ... ... ...

imt .288 .001 ... ... ...

informt ... ... ... ... ...

formt ... ... ... ... ...

resorct ... ... ... ... ...

supt ... ... ... ... ...

infot ... ... ... ... ...

oppt ... ... ... ... ...

263

BIODATA OF STUDENT

I have received my high school diploma from Maryam High School in Mashhad, Iran

1996. In 2000 I received my Bachelor degree of Art in TESL at Azad university of

Mashhad, Iran. In 2003 I received a Master of Science in Adult Education with the

concentration in life skills education. I have continued my studies at Univrsiti Putra

Malaysia for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Human Resource Development at

Department of Professional Development and Continuous Education.

MEDIATING ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT AND...

Documents

Transcript of MEDIATING ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT AND...