Psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behaviors

Journal of Global Strategic Management | 13 | 2013, June

100

AN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS’ PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT AND

VOLUNTARY PERFORMANCE BEHAVIORS: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE COMBINATION

OF PYSCHOLOGICAL POWER AND INTIMATE WILL

*Seçil BAL TAŞTAN

**Celalettin SERİNKAN

*Marmara University, Turkey

**Pamukkale University, Turkey ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behavior of academicians working in universities. It is aimed to understand how the individuals’ perceptions of psychological empowerment dimensions are related with their voluntary performance behaviors. This study examines the proposed model that consists of a number of direct and positive relationships between the psychological empowerment dimensions and voluntary performance behaviors construct. It is proposed that the dimensions of psychological empowerment, i.e. meaning, personal development, self-determination, initiation, substantial impact, and competency will be positively related to individuals’ voluntary performance behaviors. The results showed that all dimensions of psychological empowerment had significant relationship with the construct of voluntary performance behaviors. It was also revealed that psychological empowerment dimensions had significant positive impact on voluntary performance behaviors.

Keywords: Psychological Empowerment, Voluntary Performance Behavior, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Prosocial Behavior, Extra-Role Behavior, Academicians.

INTRODUCTION

Citizenship behaviors in the organizations have been shown to be important outcome of psychological empowerment. Numerous researchers have recognized a relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational citizenship related behaviors, such as prosocial behaviors, extra-role behaviors, proactive behaviors, voluntary behaviors claiming that individuals who feel more psychologically empowered are more likely to reciprocate by being more committed to their organization and exhibiting all those voluntary efforts (e.g. Spreitzer, 1995; Honold, 1997; Koberg, Boss, Senjem and Goodman, 1999; Liden, Wayne and Sparrowe, 2000; Chan, Taylor and Markham, 2008; İmer, 2009; Zhong, Lam and Chen, 2011).

Experiencing “psychological empowerment” and feeling “psychological power” can result in an individual being more engaged in “voluntary behaviors” at work. Psychological empowerment has been conceptualized as a motivational construct that “reflects an active, rather than a passive, orientation to a work role” (Spreitzer, 1995:1444). Employees that have this active orientation desire to shape their work role and context (Spreitzer, 1995; 1996), and feel an increase in task motivation (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), which may increase the likelihood of them engaging in voluntary and prosocial work behaviors. More specifically, the meaning dimension of psychological empowerment has been found to result in individuals asserting higher levels of concentration and energy towards their work (Spreitzer, 1995), as they reported more value and worth in both task-related and voluntary behaviors. Liden et al. (2000) found that psychological empowerment may contribute to a sense of committed behaviors to the


101

organization through a process of reciprocation. Individuals tend to feel appreciative when they are allowed to encounter the benefits of psychological empowerment and are therefore likely to reciprocate by engaging more to the voluntary performance behaviors.

With that respect, in this study, it is suggested that “the greater the psychological empowerment, the greater the cognitive power, the more feeling psychological power, the greater the intimate will and voluntary performance behaviors in the organization”. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate academicians’ perceptions of their psychological empowerment and voluntary work behaviors. Specifically, we have studied relationships between academicians’ psychological empowerment perceptions and their voluntary performance behaviors. This research was carried out in the academic context as the academician empowerment varies greatly from empowerment related to common business practice because academicians are highly educated and professional group having a greater influence over their work environment.

Statement of the Problem Because of the differing research studies of psychological empowerment and citizenship behaviors, the we felt that the perceptions of individuals’ psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behaviors in an academic context needed to be investigated. The organizational citizenship behaviors scale used in this study is a highly reliable instrument for evaluating the citizenship behaviors at work and has been used by many scholars in the related field. However, the instrument for psychological empowerment measurement in this study has been used in two psychological empowerment studies in the workplaces but has not been used with academicians by concentrating in universities. Thereby, the information from this study could offer a new perspective in the ongoing debate over the impact of psychological empowerment on the voluntary work behaviors in the organizations. As such, the purpose of this study is to investigate psychological empowerment as measured by the six dimensions of the PEP-S (Psychological Empowerment Perception-Scale) and voluntary performance behaviors as measured by the five dimensions of the standard OCBs Scale within the academic research setting.

Research Question

Through quantitative analysis of the Psychological Empowerment Perception Scale (PEP-S) and voluntary performance behaviors with OCBs Scale administered to academicians from six universities in İstanbul and Denizli cities of Turkey, we investigated academicians’ perceptions with their self-reports. The following research question guided this study:

1. Is there a relationship between academicians’ perceptions of six dimensions of the PEP-S (Meaning, Personal Development, Self-Determination, Initiation, Substantial Impact, and Competency) with their overall voluntary performance behaviors involving the dimensions of altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, civic virtue, and sportsmanship?

Significance of the Study

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

The Structure of the Study

This study is presented in six related parts. The first part consists of an introduction to the subject of the study, a statement of the problem, the significance of the study, one research question, the significance and the overview of the study. The second part is a review of related literature and the development of theoretical framework that approached constructs such as psychological empowerment, voluntary performance behaviors, and the relational model of these constructs. The third part is a description of the methods, measurement instruments, and procedures used in the research study. The fourth part is a description, interpretation, and presentation of the findings related to the research question and


102

hypotheses. The fifth part is a summary of findings for the study, discussion of the previous literature studies and, evaluations related to the theoretical arguments, and recommendations for future research. Finally, the sixth part is a summary of the suggested limitations of the present research study.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Citizenship behaviors in organizations have been investigated with respect to its cognitive, affect related and/or dispositional antecedents in the literature (e.g. Organ and Konovsky, 1989; Williams and Anderson, 1991; Konovsky and Organ, 1996; Messer and White, 2006; İmer, 2009). The distinction between cognition and affect at work in explaining citizenship behaviors is focused in the research of Organ and Near (1985). The authors referred to work related cognitions as employees’ judgments or evaluations about various aspects of the work situation. Attitudes stand for favorable or unfavorable evaluations of specific objects, people, or events and involve both cognitive or calculative and affective components in nature. Since it is difficult to partition the cognitive and affective components of such attitudes, in this study they are accepted as contextual constructs as determinants of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), where “context” refers to their nature as being work related (Organ and Near, 1985:243).

Positive work attitudes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, psychological empowerment have been claimed to be among major determinants of citizenship behaviors by employees (e.g. O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Organ and Ryan, 1995). The importance of positive work attitudes in relation to various aspects of outcomes such as individual-level job performance (e.g. Meyer and Allen, 1997), employee absenteeism, turnover, and commitment have been stated in earlier researches (e.g. Price and Mueller, 1986). Besides, the impact of psychological empowerment on citizenship behaviors has been studied and empirically tested by a number of authors both in foreign counties (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Bogler and Somech, 2004; Meyerson and Kline, 2008; Chiang and Hsieh, 2012; Jin-Liang and Hai-Zhen, 2012) and in Turkey (e.g. Ertenü, 2008; Atalay, 2010; Taştan, 2011; Yücel and Demirel, 2012).

As such, psychological empowerment has been related to a number of behavioral outcomes, work role behaviors, and job attitudes. Based on the previous empirical evidences, this study assumes that psychological empowerment perception is related to individuals’ performance behaviors, which is specifically stated as “voluntary performance behavior”. Thus, this section will provide conceptual definitions, prior research on the research constructs and the associations between them. Besides, the development of theoretical framework and generated hypotheses of the study will be presented.

Prior Research on Psychological Empowerment: Understanding Psychological Power

Since there has been a disagreement with respect to the definition and meaning of the concept of empowerment and psychological empowerment (Melhem 2004:73; Menon 2001:154), in this study, initially we will try to explore the conceptual domain of power, which is central to our understanding of psychological empowerment.

Power is a “nebulous and a complex” concept and definitions of power abound in the literature, and at the same time, confusion surrounds its exact meaning as power looks similar in meaning to such concepts as force, prestige, and influence (Bierstedt, 1950). Traditionally, a widely accepted definition of power is made in terms of getting others to do what one wants (Weber, 1947 as cited in Yim, 2008:15). In an organizational context, power is usually referred to as one’s ability to get the others to do their tasks or duties (Daft, 2000). However, a more appropriate view of power in this study, in alignment with the concept of empowerment, may be to construe power with the definition of Kanter as power is to be mutually shared and developed by managers and employees (Kanter, 1977).

Literally, “to empower” means “to give power” and employee empowerment can be understood as a process where “the organization, or its management, provides power to the employees” (Sagie and Koslowsky 2000, p.81). In a classification scheme proposed by Menon (2001:157; Yim, 2008:16), there are three major categories or conceptualizations of empowerment: “Empowerment has been considered an act: the act of granting power to the person(s) being empowered. It has been considered a. process: the process that leads to the experience of power. It has also been considered a psychological state that manifests itself as cognitions that can be measured”.


103

On the other hand, viewing from a micro (Seibert, Silver, and Randolph, 2004) and psychological (Liden et al., 2000) perspective, empowerment has been conceptualized as intrinsic task motivation (e.g., Conger and Kanungo 1988; Spreitzer 1995; Thomas and Velthouse 1990). This approach of research has been undertaken in distinct contrast to treating empowerment as a leader-member relational construct (Conger and Kanungo, 1988), and collectively, it is categorized under the domain of psychological empowerment (e.g. Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) or intrapersonal empowerment (Zimmerman, 1990).

Although these two conceptualizations of empowerment (structural and psychological) might appear to be quite similar, there is a crucial distinction between the two constructs, as pointed out by Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, and Wilk (2004:529): “Whereas structural empowerment is the perception of the presence or absence of empowering conditions in the workplace, psychological empowerment is the employees' psychological interpretation or reaction to these conditions.” In other words, structural empowerment characterized by empowering practices serves as a means whereas psychological empowerment serves as an end (Sagie and Koslowsky 2000:95). With a similar view, Zimmerman (1995) calls for distinguishing between empowerment processes (structural empowerment) and empowered outcomes at the individual level of analysis (psychological empowerment).

While these two conceptions of empowerment exist in the literature and are adopted by different researchers, in this study we focus specifically on the latter approach which considers empowerment as a “psychological state” predicated on employees' perceptions of their jobs. As explicated in detail previously, we maintain that this psychological approach is believed to be more diagnostic (Feldman and Lynch, 1988) of individual performance, and it has received less research attention in an academic context. We now turn to the conceptual domain of psychological empowerment, the very focus of our study.

Employee empowerment with both structural and psychological views increases an employee’s sense of ownership, self-management opportunities, and the ability of teams to govern their own actions (Bartunek and Spreitzer, 2006). Contemporary research on psychological empowerment has focused on articulating the empowerment process and the psychological underpinnings of the construct in terms of self-efficacy and autonomy (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Bordin, Bartram and Casimir, 2007). To conceptualize empowerment in motivational terms, Bandura’s (1986) notion of “self-efficacy” was advanced. Thus, psychological empowerment refers to a process whereby an individual’s belief in his or her self-efficacy is enhanced (Conger and Kanungo, 1988).

As such, when the conceptualization of psychological empowerment is examined, it is seen that Conger and Kanungo (1988) defined psychological empowerment as the motivational concept of self-efficacy. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that psychological empowerment is a multi-faceted construct. They defined psychological empowerment more broadly as increased intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to the work role: meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. For a complete discussion of the terms, we refer the reader to Spreitzer (1995) and Thomas and Velthouse (1990).

The most current and widely used conceptualization of psychological empowerment comes from Spreitzer (1995), Spreitzer et al. (1997), Spreitzer et al. (1999), and is defined as “a motivational construct manifested in four cognitions: meaning; competence; self-determination; and impact” (Spreitzer, 1995, p.1444). Specifically, Spreitzer’s conceptualization and measurement of psychological empowerment was based on Thomas and Velthouse’s (1990) identification of four cognitions believed to measure psychological empowerment: meaning (fit between the job task and one’s own beliefs, values, and behaviors); competence (belief in one’s ability to perform a job well); self-determination (feeling like one has control over one’s work); and choice or what Spreitzer refers to as impact (feeling one can affect one’s work outcomes) (e.g. Menon, 2001; Spreitzer et al., 1999; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).

When comes to the operationalisation of psychological empowerment, Spreitzer’s Empowerment Scale (Spreitzer (1995) appears to measure psychological empowerment as well as other related, but distinct, constructs such as the extent to which someone has control over the environment in which they work. Furthermore, the items appear to confound psychological empowerment with empowering environments and the Job Characteristic Model’s (JCM) dimensions of task identity, skill variety, and task significance (Hackman, Lawler and Porter, 1983; Meyerson and Kline, 2008)


104

Voluntary Performance Behavior: Understanding Intimate Will In this study, the dependent variable of the research model is “voluntary performance behaviors” which is also explained with the conceptualization of “organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs)”. We approach the concept of voluntary performance behavior as a form of workplace performance behaviors involving a variety of voluntary and extra-role behaviors. Therefore, in this part, we will begin with examining the conceptualization of OCBs and other congruent concepts.

On the common base, the literature reveals that OCBs can be viewed as an individual’s spontaneous and discretionary behaviors that are different from in-role behaviors, which emphasize formal job descriptions and responsibilities (Organ, 1988). The prior studies have investigated OCBs with respect to its cognitive, affect related and/or dispositional antecedents (e.g. Organ and Konovsky, 1989; Williams and Anderson, 1991; Konovsky and Organ, 1996; Messer and White, 2006). For example, Organ and Near (1985) referred to work related cognitions as employees’ judgments or evaluations about various aspects of the work situation. Attitudes stand for favorable or unfavorable evaluations of specific objects, people, or events and involve both cognitive or calculative and affective components in nature. Since it is difficult to partition the cognitive and affective components of such attitudes, they will be treated as contextual constructs as determinants of OCBs, where “context” refers to their nature as being work related (İmer, 2009).

With that respect, the current study accepts and reviews the dimensionality of OCB, including helping behavior, organizational compliance, sportsmanship, and civic virtue (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bacharach, 2000; Organ, Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 2006). “Helping behavior” has been studied as the major dimension of citizenship behavior (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Although it was initially labeled as altruism (e.g., Organ, 1988; Organ and Ryan, 1995), more recent studies have used the term, -helping (Organ, Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 2006). In particular, helping is defined as ―behavior that is directly and intentionally aimed at helping a specific person in face-to-face situations (Smith, Organ and Near, 1983:657), -promotive behavior that emphasizes small acts of consideration (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998:109), and -voluntary actions that help another person with a work problem (Organ, 1990:96). “Organizational compliance” has been referred to as generalized compliance, organizational obedience, job dedication, and OCBO (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior dedicated toward organizations) (Williams and Anderson, 1991; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996). “Sportsmanship” is defined as -a demonstration of willingness to forbear minor and temporary personal inconveniences and impositions without fuss, appeal, or protest (Organ and Ryan, 1995:782) and -a willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without complaining (Organ, 1990:96). “Civic virtue”, which was developed by Organ and his colleagues (Konovsky and Organ, 1996; Organ, 1990), refers to such behaviors as attending and participating in meetings in an organization. This component is seen as a necessary condition to exhibiting discretionary and spontaneous behaviors (Organ et al., 2006).

The reason behind the difficulty in identifying a consistent set of dimensions and definitions for OCB is that a number of different terms have been used to describe citizenship behaviors, such as “extra-role behavior” (Van Dyne et al., 1995; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998), “prosocial organizational behavior” (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; O‘Reilly and Chatman, 1986), “organizational spontaneity” (George and Brief, 1992), “contextual performance” (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997; Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994), and voluntary behavior (Bar-Tal, 1976; Karadağ and Mutafçılar, 2009; Taştan, 2011; Taştan, 2012). Because of these diverse operational definitions of OCBs, the researchers may have difficulties to define the nature of citizenship behaviors.

As it is seen, while current definitions vary, most authors define “prosocial behaviors” as actions benefiting others and promoting positive interpersonal relationships (e.g., Eisenberg, Fabes and Spinrad, 2006; Hay, 1994). While the intention of benefiting others is often included as a definitional component of prosocial responding, the majority of authors agree that prosocial behaviors can follow a host of motives, which can be self serving (Nantel-Vivier, 2010:15). As discussed by Eisenberg and colleagues (Eisenberg et al., 2006), this distinguishes prosocial behaviors from “altruism”, which is generally understood to represent benevolent actions free of self-interest. Prosocial behaviors are also distinct from “empathy” and “sympathy”, which constitute emotional states or reactions that may, but do not necessarily, give rise to prosocial acts (Nantel-Vivier, 2010).


105

In this study, upon the arguments in the literature and based on the examination of a variety of concepts and contents, the relevant workplace performance behavior (under the roof of citizenship behaviors) is stated as “voluntary performance behavior” since we have considered the philosophical and sociological roots of “volunteerism” concept. For instance, the concept of altruism was firstly used by Auguste Comte and defined as a tendency and will to exist for others. Bar-Tal (1976) defined prosocial behavior as a voluntary action which seeks to serve a benefit to someone without expecting any external reward (Taştan, 2012:229). Moreover, Durkheim viewed “self” concept as a destructive perception while describing altruism as a person’s voluntary behavior without seeking any personal interest (Dubeski, 2001; Karadağ and Mutafçılar, 2009; Taştan, 2012). Additionally, theorists from the human relations movement provided a theoretical foundation for workplace citizenship behaviors, offering basic perspectives on the importance of cooperative and helpful predispositions (Bolino, 1999; Thoits and Hewitt, 2001), which in this study are associated with voluntary performance behavior. For example, Barnard (1938) emphasized the cooperative systems at work and willingness to contribute as underlying concept necessary to an understanding of organizational activities. In particular, Barnard (1938:84) stated that “it is clear that the “willingness” of individuals to contribute efforts to the cooperative systems is essential”. Wilson and Musick (1997) called “formal volunteering,” i.e., volunteer work in or for the members or the organization, where time and effort are given for the betterment of the people and specified subsets of organization who are in need. As further, Kohn (1990) and Safrit (2007) have also used the term “voluntary behavior” and emphasized that such behaviors involved helping others, sharing the resources, caring and saving. Morris (as cited in Cutler, 2000) have defined voluntary behavior as a kind of act which is done “intimately” and “without circumstance”.

As it is seen, the developmental literature has largely focused on a number of categories of behaviors: response to distress, helping others, sharing, cooperating, and exhibiting intimate behaviors. In this context, it is suggested that the label of voluntary performance behavior in this study is thus a general concept, encompassing a wide array of potential actions which are all based on a person’s “intimate will”.

The Relational Model

For several decades, the topics of psychological empowerment (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Thomas and Velthouse 1990; Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer, Kizilos and Nason, 1997; Bordin, Bartram and Casimir, 2007; Gardenhour, 2008; Ertenü, 2008; Yücel and Demirel, 2012) and citizenship behaviors (e.g. O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Baruch, O’Creevy, Hind and Gadot, 2004; İmer, 2009; Küçükbayrak, 2010; İçerli and Yıldırım, 2012) have received a great deal of interest in the research literature. Empirical studies have shown the positive relationship of psychological empowerment with positive job attitudes like job satisfaction, commitment; high job performance and creativity at work (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Allen and Meyer, 1996).

Organ (1988) believed that employees’ perceived power is more likely to be expressed in extra-role behavior. The studies of Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) and (Bateman and Organ, 1983) have revealed that positive job attitudes, like commitment, job satisfaction, and psychological empowerment predicted organizational citizenship behavior. Several other researchers have confirmed the linkage between psychological empowerment and commitment, innovative, proactive and organizational citizenship behavior (Thomas and Tymon, 1994; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer, De Janasz and Quinn, 1999; Liden et al., 2000; Siegall ve Gardner, 2000; Menon, 2001; Wat and Shaffer, 2005; Aryee and Chen 2006; Kuo, Yin and Li, 2007).

In fact, the relationship between empowerment and voluntary performance behaviors can be explained with “social exchange theory” (Bandura, 1977). Wat and Shaffer (2005) suggested that empowered workers who perceive a high quality social exchange relationship with their manager are likely to engage in citizenship behaviors. Additionally in accordance with “expectancy theory” (Vroom, 1964), an individual’s motivation to increase his or her effort in a given task will depend on expectations concerning effort leading to the desired performance and that desired performance will lead to desired outcomes. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) pointed out that empowerment practices are intended to produce behavioral responses from empowered employees that are not based upon cognitive expectations of reward and punishment. Empowered employees are expected to perform beyond their formally prescribed roles (Cole, 1995; Randolph, 1995). Organ (1988) suggested that the most likely way for employees to honor their obligation in a social exchange relationship is to choose to reciprocate with organizational citizenship behaviors. The reason for this choice is that the employees do not expect to be rewarded for


106

such extra-role behaviors; neither are they punished if they chose to withdraw them. Such behaviors include “altruism”, “courtesy”, “conscientiousness”, “civic virtue” and “sportsmanship” (Organ, 1988). Podsakoff et al. (2000) supported the observation that employees, who experience supportive leader behaviors may, through the norms of reciprocity, adopt discretionary behaviors like citizenship behavior and prosocial behaviors.

As further, according to “psychological empowerment theory” (Kanter, 1977; Thomas and Welthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996, 2008; Chan, Taylor and Markham, 2008), employees who feel a sense of empowerment are likely to take an active orientation toward their work and perform “above and beyond” the call of duty. Meaningful work over which one has individual discretion is likely to lead to organizational citizenship behaviors because it fosters a sense of identification and involvement in the overall workplace, not just one’s defined work role (Spreiter, 2008; Seibert, Wang and Courtright, 2011). Competence and impact are likely to further encourage OCBs because the employees will feel capable of achieving positive outcomes in their work unit if they try (Bandura, 1997). Thus, psychological empowerment has been suggested to be associated with citizenship behaviors and voluntary performance behaviors.

With that respect, previous research has consistently found that psychological empowerment enhances job satisfaction and thus indirectly affects citizenship behaviors levels (e.g. Bordin et al., 2007; Yim, 2008; Kim, Losekoot and Milne, 2011; Najafi, Noruzy, Azar, Nazari-Shirkouhi, and Dalvand, 2011). Consistently, a number of research study conducted in different nations and cultural contexts have indicated that employees’ perceptions of psychological empowerment positively influence their individual in-role and extra-role performance behaviors (e.g. George and Jones, 1997; Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Sigler and Pearson, 2000; Ben-Zur and Yagil, 2005; Radin, 2006; Cho, 2008; Ertenü, 2008; Yücel and Demirel, 2012). Atalay’s (2010) study has demonstrated the positive relationship between psychological empowerment and citizenship behaviors with a research in Turkish context. Additionally, Yücel and Demirel (2012) have investigated the effects of psychological empowerment on organizational citizenship behaviors and have conducted a field study on the employees of a public organization in Turkey. In that study, psychological empowerment was examined with dimensions consisting of meaning, compliance, autonomy, impact, and socio-political support, access to strategic information/resources, and agency culture; and organizational citizenship behaviors with those consisting of altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. The results of the study have revealed that the relationships between dimensions of psychological empowerment and dimensions of citizenship behaviors were positive and thus, it was determined that psychological empowerment had positive effects on organizational citizenship behaviors (Yücel and Demirel, 2012).

Bhatnagar and Sandhu (2005) attempted to identity the strength of relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and psychological empowerment in IT Sector in India and the results of their study indicated that managers who perceive psychological empowerment in their occupational environment exhibited citizenship behaviors. Kim et al. (2011) have investigated the impact of psychological empowerment on organizational citizenship behaviors and the results demonstrated that all dimensions of psychological empowerment had positive effects on OCB. Seibert, Silver and Randolph (2011) have provided meta-analytic support for an integrated model specifying the consequences of psychological empowerment and their study have indicated that psychological empowerment was positively associated with a broad range of employee outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and contextual performance, and citizenship behaviors.

Moreover, psychological empowerment was also examined as a moderating or mediating variable influencing the relationships between individual job attitudes and OCB. For instance, Najafi et al. (2011) have conducted a study to determine causal relations between organizational justice, psychological empowerment, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and OCB, by examining the mediating role of psychological empowerment. In Turkey, Ertenü (2008) have demonstrated the partial mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between empowering leader behaviors and employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors. Taştan (2011) also confirmed the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between perceived self-efficacy, perceived participative organizational climate and individual extra-role performance behaviors with a research study in nursing context. Moreover, Zhong, Lam and Chen (2011) have addressed the moderating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) quality and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. As a result of Zhong et al.’s (2011) study, it was found that


107

psychological empowerment positively moderated the positive effect of leader-member exchange on OCB.

Upon the relevant literature, it is seen that studies of the relationship of prosocial affects and voluntary behaviors have provided evidences for positive relationships with psychological empowerment (e.g. Meyerson and Kline, 2007; Ertenü, 2008; Cho, 2008; Atalay, 2010; Jin-Liang and Hai-Zhen, 2012). Alge, Ballinger, Tangirala and Oakley (2006) also indicated that employees who feel psychologically empowered are likely to perceive the link between their actions and broader organizational outcomes and feel more responsibility for helping others over and above what is specified in their job requirements and exhibiting in voluntary behaviors at work.

Thus, in this study, the important theoretical issue concerning the relationship between psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behavior is addressed and the core proposition of the theory in this study is that psychological empowerment will be related to positive forms of work performance as specifically named as voluntary behaviors. Due to the theoretical background and relevant literature evidences, voluntary performance behaviors have been proposed as individual-level behavioral outcomes at work, in particular, has been seen as a key outcome because of the active, positive and worthwhile behaviors associated with psychological empowerment. This framework thus integrates over thirty years of theory and empirical research on psychological empowerment and citizenship behaviors and guides the development of the hypothesis below.

Hypothesis 1: In Turkish Universities, individuals’ level of psychological empowerment is directly and positively related to individuals’ adoption of voluntary performance behaviors.

Hypothesis 1-1: A positive relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of meaning of job and voluntary performance behaviors.

Hypothesis 1-2: A positive relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of personal development and voluntary performance behaviors.

Hypothesis 1-3: A positive relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of self-determination and voluntary performance behaviors.

Hypothesis 1-4: A positive relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of initiation and voluntary performance behaviors.

Hypothesis 1-5: A positive relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of substantial impact and voluntary performance behaviors.

Hypothesis 1-6: A positive relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of competency and voluntary performance behaviors.

The proposed research model in this study integrated psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behavior is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research Model of the Study

H1 (+)

Psychological Empowerment -Meaning (H1-1) (+) -Personal development (H1-2) (+) -Self-determination (H1-3) (+) -Initiation (H1-4) (+) -Substantial Impact (H1-5) (+) -Competency (H1-6) (+)

Voluntary Performance Behaviors


108

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study focuses on psychological empowerment and its impact on employees’ behavioral outcome of voluntary performance behaviors. In particular, this study is designed in order to understand whether (a) meaning, (b) personal development, (c) self-determination, (d) initiation (e) substantial impact and (f) competency have relationship with and impact on individuals’ voluntary performance behaviors. This study examines these constructs by performing a questionnaire survey on a predetermined research setting. Thereby, this section provides information related to the research sample, research instruments, and procedure.

Sample This research study was performed among the academic staff working in both private and public universities located in İstanbul and Denizli-Turkey. The study sample consisted of 230 academicians working in various faculties and. For the selection of respondents there was not an age or title limitation for the sample and data were collected by convenience sampling There was not researcher interference, the study setting was non-contrived, unit of analysis was individuals and time horizon of the study was cross-sectional.

Totally 350 questionnaires were distributed and 230 were returned for a response rate of 70%. About 59% of the respondents were female, 58.2% were married, and 35.6% had 1 child. The sample included a wide age range. About 75% of the respondents were between the ages 23–39. Majority of the sample (46.8%) was assistant professor while 28.2% was associate professor and 10.3% was lecturer with doctorate degree, 10% was research assistant and 4.2% was professor. The work experience of the respondents varied between 1 and over 16 years.

Questionnaire Design

In this research study, one self-developed instrument and one standard instrument were used. The dependent variable (voluntary performance behavior) of the research was measured with the standard instrument of the scholars of the related research areas (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter, 1990). The independent variable (psychological empowerment) of the research model was measured with the scale that was developed by Taştan (2011) throughout qualitative and quantitative methods between the years of 2009-2011 in Istanbul-Turkey. This section will provide brief information about the relevant measurement instruments used in the survey.

Voluntary Performance Behaviors. To measure an individual’s voluntary performance behavior, the Organizational Citizenship Scale (OCBs Scale) of Podsakoff et al. (1990) was used. The OCBs Scale is considered as the most standard measurement of organizational citizenship behaviors and extra-role performance behaviors. This scale has 24 items measuring five dimensions of OCB within this scale. In this research study, the dimensions and the items of the questionnaire were “Altruism” (5 items-1,10,13,15,23), “Civic Virtue” (4 items-6,9,11,12), “Courtesy” (5 items-5,8,14,17,20), “Consciensciousness” (5 items-3,18,21,22,24), and “Sportsmanship” (5 items-2,4,7,16,19). Sample items included “I help my colleagues who have high workload” and “I am always ready to help my colleagues”, and “I always obey the rules and regulations even nobody sees or observes me”. The ratings were given on a 5-point itemized rating scale, where 1= totally disagree and 5= totally agree.

Psychological Empowerment. In order to measure individuals’ psychological empowerment perception, Taştan’s (2011) “Psychological Empowerment Perception Scale (PEP)” was used. Based on the literature conceptualizations and Spreitzer’s (1995) four main dimensions of psychological empowerment, qualitative and quantitative studies were constituted and conducted by Taştan (2011) in her doctorate dissertation study. As a result of that study, the final scale was composed of 23 items and measuring the 6 components psychological empowerment perception. The relevant scale was firstly conducted in nursing context in hospital settings with 6 points Likert type scale from ―totally agree to ―totally disagree and Cronbach Alfa value was .86. As a result of that study, 6 cognitive perception components were revealed and named as personal development, meaningfulness, self-determinism, initiation, substantial impact, and competency (for detailed information see Taştan, 2011). Consequently, it was suggested that the scale could be applied and conducted in different industries, sectors, occupations, cultural contexts, etc. Later, for the second time, the scale was conducted in research among the employees working in food sector and as a result of that study, 5 factors were emerged and the Cronbach Alpha value of the scale was .89


109

Taştan, 2012). Therefore, in this study, that original scale was used for the third time in order to measure the respondents’ psychological empowerment perceptions and also to reevaluate the reliability and validity of the scale. Thereby, the second section measuring “psychological empowerment” requested the respondents to complete 23 items on a 5 point Likert scale (1=Totally Disagree,… 5=Totally Agree). The Cronbach Alpha value of the scale in the current research study was revealed as .88.

a) 5 items related to psychological cognition of “personal development” (8,4,7,6,5) b) 3 items related to psychological cognition of “meaning” (1,2,3) c) 4 items related to psychological cognition of “self-determination” (12,13,14,15) d) 4 items related to psychological cognition of “initiative” (16,17,19,18) e) 4 items related to psychological cognition of “substantial impact” (21,20,22,23) f) 3 items related to psychological cognition of “competency” (9,10,11)

Moreover, the initial section of the survey questionnaire requested the respondents’ demographic profile such as gender, age, marital status, number of children, tenure in the current university, etc.. Questions in the personal information section were asked in categorical and interval forms.

Procedure Three hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed to various universities’ academicians in different faculties and departments. The universities were located in Istanbul and in Denizli. Each university and each department were distributed 350 questionnaires. However, 230 academicians from 7 Universities volunteered to participate in the study and filled the questionnaire. The respondents were encouraged to complete the questionnaire on the spot or to return the questionnaire after 2-3 days or a week. The questionnaires were hand-collected by the researches and some of the respondents preferred to fill the questionnaire via internet. As a result of 2 months study, totally 230 questionnaires were successfully completed and collected.

FINDINGS

This section provides the results of the research study and interpretation of the statistical data.

Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities

This section of the study presents the descriptive statistics of the components of psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behavior. The results are shown in Table 1. The results show that the mean score for “psychological empowerment” is 3.8924. The results indicate that most respondents have high perceptions of psychological empowerment construct in their organization. Table 1 also shows that the respondents provide the highest mean score for “meaning” (4.1120) followed by “personal development” (4.0188), “self-determination” (3.9779), “competency” (3.9553), “initiation” (3.9222), and “substantial impact” (3.2682). Thereby, the respondents provided the lowest mean score for “substantial impact”.

In Table 1, it is also seen that the mean score for “voluntary performance behavior” is 3.3763. The results indicate that most respondents have high voluntary performance behaviors towards their job, organization, and colleagues. It is also seen that the respondents provide the highest mean score for “courtesy” (3.8876) followed by “sportsmanship” (3.3638) and “altruism” (3.2582). Moreover, the respondents provide the lower means scores for “conscientiousness” (3.1541) and “civic virtue” (3.2380). The lowest mean score provided by the respondents is “conscientiousness” (3.1541) respectively.


110

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary Performan Behavior Constructs

Variable Mean Score Voluntary Performance Behaviors 3.3763 Altruism 3.2582 Conscientiousness 3.1541 Courtesy 3.8876 Civic virtue 3.2380 Sportsmanship 3.3638 Psychological Empowerment 3.8924 Meaning 4.1120 Personal development 4.0188 Self-determination 3.9779 Competency 3.9553 Initiation 3.9222 Substantial impact 3.2682 N:230

Moreover, before testing the hypotheses and conducting regression analysis, series of factors and reliability tests were performed. The overall psychological empowerment scale’s reliability value was revealed as .88. The results showed that the reliability for meaning is 0.92, personal development (0.91), self-determination (0.89), competency (0.84), initiation (0.86) and substantial impact (0.87) as being the dimensions of “psychological empowerment” construct. The results also showed that the reliability for voluntary performance behaviors based on 24 items is 0.82. As being the dimensions of “voluntary performance behavior” construct, the reliability for courtesy is 0.83, sportsmanship (0.81), altruism (0.84), conscientiousness (0.86), and civic virtue (0.79). The results indicate that all variables in this study are reliable.

The Relationship between Psychological Empowerment Dimensions and Voluntary Performance Behavior

This section presents the results of testing hypothesis 1 (a positive, direct relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behaviors) and the sub-hypotheses of H1-1 to H1-6. The hypotheses are tested using Pearson’s correlation.

The Relationship between overall Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary Performance Behaviors

Initially, in testing the hypothesis 1 by using Pearson’s correlation, psychological empowerment is taken as a total variable of six dimensions (meaning, personal development, self-determination, initiation, substantial impact, competency). Table 2 presents the results of testing hypothesis 1.

Table 2. Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary Performance Behaviors

Psychological Empowerment


Psychological Empowerment

r 1 0.544 p 0.000 N 230 230


r 0.544 1 p 0.000 N 230 230

The results show that there is a significant, positive and moderate correlation between psychological empowerment construct and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.544). Therefore, hypothesis 1 is accepted. Such a result is consistent with the literature which has evidences about the relationship


111

between psychological empowerment and extra-role performance behaviors (OCBs) (e.g. Spreitzer, 1995, 2008; Argyris, 1998; Petter et al., 2002; Wall, Wood and Leach, 2004; Patterson et al., 2004; Atalay, 2010; Seibert et al., 2011).

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

Table 3. Meaning and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Meaning Voluntary Performance Meaning r 1 0.586

p 0.000 0.000 N 230 230

Voluntary Performance

r 0.586 1 p 0.000 N 230 230

The results show that there is a significant and moderate correlation between meaning dimension of psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.586). Therefore, hypothesis 1-1 is accepted.

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

Table 4. Personal Development and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Self Development Voluntary Performance Personal Development

r 1 0.415 p 0.000 0.000 N 230 230


r 0.415 1 p 0.000 N 230 230

The results show that there is a significant and weak correlation between personal development and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.415). Therefore, Hypothesis 1-2 is supported.

The Relation of Self-Determination with Voluntary Performance Behavior

Hypothesis 1-3 states that “a positive, direct relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of self determination and voluntary performance behaviors. Table 5 presents the results of testing hypothesis 1-3.


112

Table 5. Self-Determination and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Self-Determination Voluntary Performance Self-Determination r 1 0.724

p 0.000 N 230 230


r 0.724 1 p 0.000 N 230 230

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

The Relation of Initiation with Voluntary Performance Behavior Hypothesis 1-4 states that “a positive, direct relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of initiation and voluntary performance behaviors. Table 6 presents the results of testing hypothesis 1-4.

Table 6. Initiation and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Initiation Voluntary Performance Initiation r 1 0.684

p 0.000 N 230 230

Voluntary Performance r 0.684 1 p 0.000 N 230 230

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

The Relation of Substantial Impact with Voluntary Performance Behavior

Hypothesis 1-5 states that “a positive, direct relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of substantial impact and voluntary performance behaviors. Table 7 presents the results of testing hypothesis 1-5.

Table 7. Substantial Impact and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Substantial Impact Voluntary Performance Substantial Impact r 1 0.304

p 0.000 0.000 N 230 230


r 0.304 1 p 0.000 N 230 230


113

The results show that there is a significant and weak correlation between substantial impact and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.304). Therefore, Hypothesis 1-5 is supported.

The Relation of Competency with Voluntary Performance Behavior Hypothesis 1-6 states that “a positive, direct relationship is expected between individuals’ perception of competency and voluntary performance behaviors. Table 8 presents the results of testing hypothesis 1-6. Table 8. Competency and Voluntary Performance Behavior

Competency Voluntary Performance Competency r 1 0.533

p 0.000 0.000 N 230 230


r 0.533 1 p 0.000 N 230 230

The results show that there is a significant and moderate correlation between competency and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.533). Therefore, Hypothesis 1-6 is supported.

Multiple Regressions for Further Analysis

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

Table 9. Multiple Regression Analysis for Dimensions of Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary Performance Behaviors

Dependent Variable: Voluntary Performance Behaviors

Independent Variables Beta t value p value

Meaning 0.425 4.117 0.000 Personal Development 0.129 4.882 0.001 Self-Determination 0.432 5.099 0.000 Initiation 0.368 5.658 0.000 Substantial Impact 0.202 5.772 0.000 Competency 0.396 2.388 0.001

R = 0.613; R2 = 0.546; F = 90.205 p = 0.000

The dimensions of psychological empowerment explain 54.6% of the variance in voluntary performance behaviors. “Personal development” dimension has the lowest impact on voluntary behavior with the p value of 0.001 > 0,05 (β=0.129). The results in table 9 shows that the six dimensions of psychological empowerment contribute 54.6% in impacting voluntary performance behaviors. Among the six dimensions of psychological empowerment, self-determination has the most important impact on voluntary behaviors (p=0.000; β=0.432).

As it is presented on Figure 2, all six dimensions of psychological empowerment perception is significantly and positively related to the voluntary performance behaviors. Thereby, it can be suggested that all six dimensions of psychological empowerment have a significant explanatory power on the voluntary performance behavior of the individuals and have a contribution for the exposition of voluntary behaviors despite the weak values of beta coefficients for personal development and substantial impact.


114

Figure 2. Research Model of Psychological Empowerment and Voluntary

Performance Behaviors

Consequently, the further analysis of multiple regression has confirmed the hypothesized relationship between psychological empowerment perceptions and voluntary behaviors and it was revealed that the components of the psychological empowerment (independent variable) have impact on the voluntary behaviors (dependent variable).

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Practitioners and scholars have advocated the importance of viewing individuals as active subjects, who are able to engage in prosocial and voluntary work behaviors that facilitate positive changes in themselves and their work environment (Ashford and Cummings, 1985; Bateman and Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000; Grant and Ashford, 2008). Individuals are not merely passive beings of their work environment; rather they can make conscious decisions to exhibit in altruistic behaviors, extra-role behaviors and voluntary efforts (Bandura, 1997; Cameron, Dutton and Quinn, 2003; Cameron and Lavine, 2006; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Voluntary performance behaviors at work are those self-initiated, change oriented, and intimate behaviors that can facilitate positive change within the internal organization (Parker and Collins, 2010; Searle, 2011).

In today’s organizations, though the increasing technology and changing economic challenges, the prosocial, helping and voluntary work behaviors of their individuals are becoming more essential. This situation is seen important particularly in educational and academic settings. Voluntary work behaviors are positively related to individual job satisfaction and identification (Ashford and Black, 1996) and individual job performance (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998; Grant, Parker and Collins, 2009; Griffin, Parker and Mason, 2010; Searle, 2011). These positive consequences of voluntary work behavior illustrate the potential impact that voluntary work behaviors may have within the workplace context.

Thus, a greater understanding of the antecedents of voluntary work behaviors becomes an important subject. Previous scholars and researchers have mentioned that both individual differences and contextual factors are antecedents to citizenship behaviors, prosocial and voluntary performance behaviors (Crant, 2000; Parker, Bindl and Strauss, 2010). To date, scholars have largely emphasized individual differences as antecedents to voluntary work behavior (Ashford and Black, 1996; Morrison and Phelps, 1999; Parker, 2000; Grant and Ashford, 2008). For example, desire for control (Ashford and Black, 1996), proactive personality (Parker and Collins, 2010), general self-efficacy and felt responsibility (Morrison and Phelps, 1999; Taştan, 2011) have all been reported as antecedents to voluntary work behaviors. Scholars have also proposed that cognitive motivational states may explain the process by which individual differences

Meaning

Personal Development

Self-determinism

Substantial impact


β=0,425

β=0,432

β=0,202

β=0,129

Competency

Initiative

β=0,368

β=0,396


115

influence voluntary work behaviors (Parker, Williams and Turner, 2006). One positive motivational state that has been examined as a possible independent, moderating or mediating variable is psychological empowerment (e.g. Ertenü, 2008; Seibert et al., 2011; Zhong et al., 2011).

Although relatively a few research has been carried out in this area, the current research study was carried out for two main reasons. Firstly, in line with Vroom and Deci (1974, 2000) and Spreitzer (1995, 1997, 2008) it is likely that individuals believe that the additional effort involved in extra-role or voluntary behaviors indirectly or directly improve their work performance, satisfaction, commitment, and increasing their intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Based on the arguments of the scholars, job autonomy, self-efficacy, control and achievement could be the issues related with those voluntary behaviors at work upon the implications of the theory of “social behaviors as exchange” (Blau, 1964; Bandura, 1977). However, the main suggestion of the authors of the current study was that the perception of being psychologically empowered or having power, control, autonomy or personal competency might not always be related to altruistic and voluntary behaviors work behaviors. In other words, individuals may have low levels of psychological cognitions related to empowerment states but may engage in high or low levels of voluntary work behaviors. Thus, there could be a conflict or consistency between “being powered” and “having intimate will” towards voluntary work behaviors. Therefore, this study was conducted for getting an understanding of the relationship between individuals’ perceptions of psychological empowerment state and their voluntary performance behaviors at work based on the foundational theories and basic assumptions of the study.

Secondly, as we have discussed before, the main purposes of this study was to use a self-developed original “psychological empowerment perception scale”. Therefore, it was important to examine the relationship between the dimensions of this scale-self-development, meaning, self-determination, initiation, substantial impact, and competency- and voluntary performance behaviors as being the dependent variable of the study’s research model. At this point, we note that the use of an original instrument measuring the dimensions of psychological empowerment could provide knowledge if the dimensions conceptually and operationally explained the voluntary performance behaviors.

With that respect, in this study, the process through which individual psychological empowerment cognitions are antecedents to voluntary performance behaviors was examined with correlation analysis with each sub-dimension of psychological empowerment. According to the correlation analysis results, it was seen that each of the original sub dimension of psychological empowerment was significantly correlated with voluntary performance behaviors with moderate or high coefficient values. The means of the dimensions of both psychological empowerment and voluntary behavior constructs were examined and it was seen that the highest mean score was for “meaning” (4.1120) followed by “personal development” (4.0188), “self-determination” (3.9779), “competency” (3.9553), “initiation” (3.9222), and “substantial impact” (3.2682). The total mean score for “voluntary performance behavior” was 3.3763. The results indicated that the respondents provided the highest mean score for “courtesy” (3.8876) followed by “sportsmanship” (3.3638) and “altruism” (3.2582). However, the results revealed the lower means scores for “conscientiousness” (3.1541) and “civic virtue” (3.2380). Thereby, it can be suggested that the academicians in the research sample had low levels of substantial impact and initiation perceptions respectively, where they had higher levels of perceptions of self-determination, competency and personal development which may be the indicators of state of having “power” at work. Moreover, according to the mean scores of courtesy, sportsmanship, and altruism, it can be suggested that the academicians have altruistic and helping behaviors with sportsmanship which may be the indicators of “intimate will”. As such, the results showed that the research sample had perceptions of both power and intimate will.

After these examinations, correlation and regression analyses were conducted in order to understand how are the sub dimensions of psychological empowerment are related to voluntary performance behaviors. The results indicated that there was a significant, positive and moderate correlation between psychological empowerment construct and voluntary performance behavior (p=0.000; r=0.544). The results showed that there was a significant and moderate correlation between meaning dimension and voluntary behavior (p=0.000; r=0.586), a significant and weak correlation between personal development and voluntary behavior (p=0.000; r=0.415). Moreover, the results revealed a significant and strong correlation between self-determination dimension and voluntary behavior (p=0.000; r=0.724). The initiation dimension was significantly and moderately correlated with voluntary behavior (p=0.000; r=0.684) and substantial impact was significantly and weakly correlated with voluntary behavior


116

(p=0.000; r=0.304). Finally, competency dimension had a significant and moderate correlation with voluntary behavior (p=0.000; r=0.533). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 and the hypotheses from 1-1 to 1-6 were supported.

For further analyses, multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the impact of dimensions of psychological empowerment on individuals’ voluntary performance behaviors. The results revealed that total psychological empowerment explained 54.6% of the variance in voluntary performance behaviors. “Personal development” dimension had the lowest impact on voluntary behavior (p=0.001 > 0,05; β=0.129) while self-determination had the most important impact on voluntary behaviors (p=0.001 > 0,05; β=0.432). Thereby, it was indicated that all six dimensions of psychological empowerment had significant explanatory power on voluntary performance behavior construct and have a contribution for voluntary behaviors at work.

With that sense, it is implied that these results are in line with the theory and empirical evidences in the literature. The results are consistent with the implications of social exchange theory principles (Deluga, 1998; Bandura, 2000), the psychological empowerment theory (Konger and Kanungo, 1988; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990, Spreitzer, 1995; Menon, 2001) and OCB theory (Podsakoff, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1997; Bordin et al., 2007). It is also worth to note that the result support the literature which has evidences about the relationship between psychological empowerment and voluntary behaviors (prosocial, extra-role, OCBs etc.) (Spreitzer, 1995; Argyris, 1998; Baker et al., 1996; Mills, 1994; Patterson et al., 2004; Organ et al., 2006; Petter et al., 2002; Wall et al., 2004; Baruch, O’Creevy, Hind and Vigoda-Gadot, 2004; Meyerson and Kline, 2008; Seibert et al., 2011).

Additionally, since one of the main purposes of this study was to use Taştan’s (2011) “psychological empowerment scale” as an original measurement instrument, we find essential to evaluate the findings related to the statistical reports of the instrument in this research study. Within the third application of the scale, the results showed that each dimension of the scale revealed high reliability values and the overall reliability of the scale was revealed as .88. Moreover, it is interesting that the examination of the factor structure of our voluntary behavior construct has revealed that the dimensions of the variable were indicating the individuals’ autonomic behaviors, altruistic and self-determined voluntary predispositions to help other colleagues and people in the workplace. These dimensions were measured with the standard instrument of Podsakoff et al. (1997, 2000) for evaluating the citizenship behaviors of individuals. As a result of statistical analysis of this study, it was seen that the dimensions were fitting the implications of each dimension of standard scale of OCBs (Organ et al., 2006; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Therefore, in our research context, the voluntary behaviors inferred the units of individual prosocial and citizenship behaviors which was conceptually consistent with the literature.

As further, we addressed that the self-determination dimension of psychological empowerment implicating a psychological state and cognitive processing within an individual’s inter world related with self choice and volunteer performance behaviors. In this respect, we have been attracted by the strong correlation between self-determination and voluntary behavior in this study and note that this finding is consistent with the implications of Deci and Ryan’s (1985, 2000) “Self-Determination Theory” and adds contribution to the conceptualization of psychological empowerment theory.

Moreover, in the psychological empowerment construct, the concepts were the dimensions of the psychological empowerment scale which have been developed within Turkish context (Taştan, 2011) and as being individual’s intrapersonal cognitive processing, these dimensions revealed significant relationships with the standard dimensions of voluntary performance behaviors. Thus, it is suggested that the conceptualization of psychological empowerment was operationalized with the relevant dimensions of “meaning”, “personal development”, “self-determination”, “initiation”, “substantial impact”, and “competency”. With that respect, we would like to contribute to the research field by adopting Thomas and Velthouse’s (1990) and Spreitzer’s (1995) conceptualization of the psychological empowerment concept (meaning, competence, self-determination and impact) but also to utilize a new and original measurement instrument in order to enable the integration of our conceptualization of psychological empowerment concept (self-development, meaning, self-determination, initiation, substantial impact, and competence).


117

Consequently, we note that we have constituted the background assumption of the study and have expected that the overall voluntary performance behaviors would be an outcome of the psychologically empowered individuals who have high power, self-determination, meaning, and substantial impact believes and who are having intimate will to exhibit voluntary behaviors that are discretionary efforts at work. It is worth to suggest that the literature background and the foundational theories supports the conclusion of this study.

However, as psychological empowerment in this research study had significant impact on voluntary performance behaviors, it is supposed that there are other variables or factors that might have effect voluntary behaviors such as personal, contextual, environmental, situational, demographical, etc. Additionally, within the research model of this study, we assumed that psychological empowerment perception would to be directly associated with voluntary performance behaviors. However, as we have also discussed within the conceptual part of the study, psychological empowerment could be examined as a mediator or moderator that plays a role on the relationship between a number of organizational, individual, and contextual variables and voluntary behaviors.

Finally, our hope is that this study contributes to the knowledge of scholars and the literature regarding the relationship between psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behaviors or citizenship behaviors at work. Besides, our hope is that this study contributes to psychological empowerment theory and literature with both theoretical and operational implications. As further, we suggest that the concept “voluntary performance behavior” with its philosophical and sociological definitions may contribute to the knowledge about prosocial, discretionary, and extra-role behaviors which have been examined under the construct of citizenship behaviors. At last, we hope that this study will contribute to future academic researches and theoretical developments within the Organizational Behavior and Management and Organization sciences.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

In order to improve the understanding of these relationships, further research should be conducted to overcome some of the limitations of the present study. These limitations include (1) the fact that the present sample was drawn mostly from a Turkish academic population, all working in universities, (2) the use of self-report measures of voluntary performance and, (3) the exposure to common method bias. Therefore, further studies should cross-validate these results and also be conducted on a cross-cultural basis, with a broader spectrum of types of organizations or sectors. Additionally, it is suggested that future studies should be undertaken to consider the broad and complementary range of variables involving organizational, personal and situational factors. We would refer to different demographics for the examination of the psychological empowerment state such as gender, age, tenure, title, etc. Moreover, although research and theory suggest that there is a relationship between psychological empowerment and voluntary behaviors, there exists both limited and conflicting evidence as to whether psychological empowerment is a cause of voluntary performance, vice-versa, or the two are reciprocally related. Therefore, it is also suggested that, in further studies, such reciprocal relationships could be examined.


118

REFERENCES

Alge, B.J., Ballinger, G.A., Tangirala, S. and Oakley, J.L. (2006). Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extra-role performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), pp.221-232.

Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, pp.252–276.

Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), pp.98-105.

Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (2006). Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: Antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59, pp.793-801.

Ashford, S. J. and Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (2), pp.199-214.

Ashford, S. J. and Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, pp.67–79.

Atalay, C. G. (2010). Personel Güçlendirme ve Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı Bağlamında İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, Detay Publishing, Ankara, Turkey.

Baker, R. S., Field, J. M., Schroeder, R. G. and Sinha, K. K. (1996). Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), pp.867-890.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, pp.191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp.120-136). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bar-Tal, D. (1976). Prosocial Behavior: Theory and Research, New York: John Willey and Sons.

Bartunek, J.M. and Spreitzer, G.(2006). The Interdisciplinary Career of a Popular Construct Used in Management: Empowerment in the Late 20th Century. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), pp.255-273.

Baruch, Y., O’Creevy, M.F., Hind, P. and Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2004). Prosocial behavior and job performance: Does the need for control and the need for achievement make a difference?. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(4), pp.399-412.

Bateman, T. S. and Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good solider: The relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, pp.587–595.

Bateman, T. S. and Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, pp.103–118.

Ben-Zur, H. and Yagil, D. (2005). The relationship between empowerment, aggressive behaviors of customers, coping, and burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(1), pp.81- 99.

Bhatnagar, J. and Sandhu, S. (2005). Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in IT Managers: A Talent Retention Tool. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 40, pp.449-469.

Bierstedt, R. (1950). An Analysis of Social Power. American Sociological Review, 15(6), pp.730-736.


119

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, Wiley.

Bogler, R. and Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, pp.277–289.

Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1), pp.82-98.

Bordin, C.; Bartram, T. and Casimir, G. (2007). The antecedents and consequences of psychological empowerment among Singaporean IT employees. Management Research News, 30(1), pp.34-46.

Borman, W. C. and Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning of personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, pp.99-109.

Brief, A. P. and Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), pp.710-725.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E. and Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cameron, K.S. and Lavine, M. (2006) Making the Impossible Possible: Leading Extraordinary Performance. San Francisco, Berret‐Koehler.

Chan, Y. H., Taylor, R. R., and Markham, S. (2008). The role of subordinates' trust in a social exchange-driven psychological empowerment process. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(4), pp.444-467.

Chiang,C.F. and Hsieh,T.S.(2012). The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, pp.180-190.

Cho, T.J. (2008). An integrative model of empowerment and individual performance under conditions of organizational individualism and collectivism in public sector organizations. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York, Department of Public Administration and Policy.

Cole, N. (1995). How Employee Empowerment Improves Manufacturing Performance. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), pp.80-81.

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

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26 (3), pp.435-462.

Cutler, H.C. (2000). Mutluluk Sanatı, Dharma Publishing, Istanbul, Turkey.

Daft, R.L. (2000). Management, 2nd Edition, Orlando:Dryden Press.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York. U.S.A.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), pp.227-268.

Dubeski, N. (2001). Durkheim’s Altruism as the Source of His Social Holism: A Discussion of the Viability of a Social Basis for Moral Principles. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 5(3), http://www.sociology.org/archive.html.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A. and Spinrad, T. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social emotional, and personality development (6th ed.,Vol. 3, pp. 646–718). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Ergeneli, A., Sag, G., Ari, I., and Metin, S. (2007). Psychological empowerment and its relationship to trust in immediate managers. Journal of Business Research, 60, pp.41–56.


120

Ertenü, B. (2008). The role of psychological empowerment between managerial practices and organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation. Marmara University, Social Sciences Institute, Istanbul, Turkey.

Feldman, J. M., and Lynch, J.G. (1988). Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (3), pp.421-435.

Gardenhour, C.R. (2008). Teachers Perceptions of Empowerment in Their Work Environments as Measured by the Psychological Empowerment Instrument. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, East Tennessee State University, U.S.A.

George, J. M. and Brief, A. P. (2000). Feeling good doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), pp.310-329.

George, J. M. and Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 10, pp.153-170.

Grant, A. M. and Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, pp.3-34.

Grant, A. M., Parker, S. and Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology , 62, pp.31-55.

Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, pp.3–34.

Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K. and Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1), pp.174-182.

Hackman J.R., Lawler, E.E. and Porter, L.W. (1983). Perspectives on behavior in organizations, (2nd edition) New York: McGraw Hill.

Hay, D. F. (1994). Prosocial development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, pp.29–71.

Honold, L. (1997). A review of the literature on employee empowerment. Empowerment in Organizations, 5(4), pp.202 – 212.

İçerli L. and Yıldırım, M.H. (2012). Örgütsel sinisizm ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı arasındaki ilişki: sağlık sektöründe bir araştırma. Journal of Organization and Management Sciences, 4(1), pp.167-176.

İmer, H.P. (2009). Contextual and dispositional antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors: Does occupation make a difference?. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, Management Department, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Jin-Liang, W. and Hai-Zhen, W. (2012). The influences of psychological empowerment on work attitude and behavior in Chinese organizations. Journal of Business Management, 6 (30), pp.8938-8947.

Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Karadağ, E. and Mutafçılar, I. (2009). Prososyal Davranış Ekseninde Özgecilik Üzerine Teorik Bir Çözümleme. Journal of Philosophy, 8, pp.41-70.

Kim, B.P., Losekoot, E. and Milne, S. (2011). Impact of Psychological Empowerment for Individual Service Workers. The 2 nd International Research Symposium in Service Management Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 26 – 30 July, pp.392-401.

Koberg, C. S., Boss, W., Senjem, J. C., and Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group and Organization Management, 34(1), pp.71-91.

Kohn, A. (1990). The Brighter Side of Human Nature: Altruism and Empathy in Everyday Life, New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Konovsky, M. A. and Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, pp.253- 266.


121

Küçükbayrak, R. (2010). An integrative model of transformational leadership, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Department of Business Administration, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Kuo, H.T., Yin, T.J.C. and Li, I.C. (2007). Relationship between organizational empowerment and job satisfaction perceived by nursing assistant at long-term care facilities. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17, pp.3059-3066.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, pp.527-545.

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3), pp.407-416.

Melhem, Y. (2004). The antecedents of customer-contact employee’s empowerment. Journal of Employment Relations, 26, pp.72-93.

Menon, S.T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1), pp.153-180.

Messer, B. A. E. and White, F. A. (2006). Employees’ mood, perceptions of fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(1), pp.65-82.

Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meyerson, S.L. and Kline, T.J.B. (2008). Psychological and environmental empowerment: Antecedents and consequences. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 29(5), pp.444-460.

Mills, D.Q. (1994). The GEM principle: Six steps to creating a high performance organization. Essex Junction, VT, Omne.

Morrison, E. W. and Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (4), pp.403-419.

Motowidlo, S. J. and Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), pp.475-480.

Najafi, S., Noruzy, A., Azar, H.K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. and Dalvand, M.R. (2011). Investigating the relationship between organizational justice, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical model. African Journal of Business Management, 5 (13), pp.5241-5248.

Nantel-Vivier, A. (2010). Patterns and Correlates of Prosocial Behavior Development. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation. Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, U.S.A.

O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), pp.492-499.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (12, pp. 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Organ, D. W. and Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), pp.157-164.

Organ, D. W. and Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, pp.775- 802.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.


122

Organ, D.W. and J.P. Near. (1985). Cognition Versus Affect in Measures of Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Psychology, 20, pp.241-253.

Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49 (3), pp.447-469.

Parker, S. K. and Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36 (3), pp.633-662.

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K. and Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36 (4), pp.827-856.

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M. and Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3), pp.636-652.

Patterson, M.G., West, M.A. and Wall, T.D. (2004). Integrated manufacturing, empowerment, and company performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, pp.641-665.

Petter, J., Byrnes, P., Choi, D., Fegan, F. and Miller, R. (2002). Dimension and patterns in employee empowerment: Assessing what matters to street-level bureaucrats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3), pp.377-400.

Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), pp.262-270.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, pp.107-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bacharach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, pp.513–563.

Price, J. L. and Mueller, C. W. (1986). Absenteeism and Turnover of Hospital Employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Randolph, W.A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, 23 (4), pp.19-50.

Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychological Association, 55(1), pp.68-78.

Safrit, R.D. (2007). When Ability and Will Combine: Volunteer Motivations and Incentives. The International Journal of Volunteer Administration, 24(5), pp.1-4.

Sagie, A. and Koslowsky, M. (2000). Participation and Empowerment in Organizations: Modeling, Effectiveness, and Applications, California: Sage Publications.

Searle, T.P. (2011). A Multilevel Examination of Proactive Work Behaviors: Contextual and Individual Differences as Antecedents. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska, U.S.A.

Seibert, S.E., Silver, S.R. and Randolph, V.A. (2004). Taking Empowerment to the Next Level: A Multiple-level Model of Empowerment, Performance, and Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (3), pp.332-349.

Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H. (2011). Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological and Team Empowerment in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. 96(5), pp.981-1003.

Seligman, M.E.P. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology, an Introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), pp.5-14.


123

Sigler, T.H. and Pearson C. M. (2000). Creating An Empowering Culture: Examining the Relationship Between Organizational Culture and Perceptions of Empowerment. Journal of Quality Management, 5, pp.27-52.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. and Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, pp.655-663.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), pp.1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996) Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), pp.483-504.

Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In J. Barling and C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 54–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C. and Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, pp.511-526.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. and Nason, S. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23, pp.679–704.

Taştan, S. (2011). The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment on the Relationship between Participative Organizational Climate, Self-efficacy and Individual Performance Behaviors. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, Marmara University, Social Sciences Institute, Department of Organizational Behavior, Istanbul, Turkey.

Taştan, S. (2012). Bir pozitif psikoloji kavramı olarak örgütle özdeşleşmenin psikolojik güçlendirme algısı ve gönüllü performans davranışı arasındaki ilişkide ara değişken rolünün değerlendirilmesi: Gıda sektöründe yapılan bir araştırma. Journal of Organization and Management Sciences, 4(1), pp.227-238..

Thoits, P.A. and Hewitt, L.N. (2001). Volunteer Work and Well-Being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, pp.115–131.

Thomas, K. W. and Tymon, W. G. (1994). Does empowerment always work: Understanding the role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation? Journal of Management Systems, 6(1), pp.39-54.

Thomas, K. W. and Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, pp.666–681.

Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal , 41 (1), pp.108-119.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L. and McLean-Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (17, pp. 215-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. and Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp.765-802.

Van Scotter, J. R. and Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), pp.525-531.

Vroom, V. and Deci, E. (1974). Management and motivation. Hammondsworth: Penguin.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford, England: Wiley.

Wall, T. D., Wood, S. J. and Leach, D. J. (2004). Empowerment and performance. In C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (19, pp. 1-46). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York.

Wat, D. and Shaffer, M.A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review, 34, pp.406-422.


124

Williams, L. J. and Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, pp.601-617.

Wilson, J. and Musick, M. (1997). Who Cares? Toward an Integrated Theory of Volunteer Work. American Sociological Review, 62, pp.694–713.

Yim, H.K. (2008). Psychological Empowerment of Salespeople: The Construct, Its Inducement, and Consequences on Customer Relationships. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, Drextel University, U.S.A.

Yücel, İ. and Demirel, Y. (2012). Psikolojik Güçlendirmenin Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışına Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Kocaeli University, Social Sciences Institute Journal, 23, pp.19 – 48.

Zhong, J. A., Lam, W. and Chen, Z. (2011). Relationship between leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: Examining the moderating role of empowerment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28, pp.609-626,

Zimmerman, M.A. (1990). Taking Aim on Empowerment Research: On the Distinction Between Psychological and Individual Conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18 (1), pp.169-177.

Zimmerman, M. A. (1995) Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, pp.581–599.

Psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behaviors

Documents

Transcript of Psychological empowerment and voluntary performance behaviors