Empowerment and initiative: the mediating role of obligation
| Pages | 662-677 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-11-2017-0273 |
| Published date | 03 June 2019 |
| Date | 03 June 2019 |
| Author | Wajda Wikhamn,Marcus Selart |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
Empowerment and initiative: the
mediating role of obligation
Wajda Wikhamn
Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior,
BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway, and
Marcus Selart
Department of Strategy and Management, NHH Norwegian School of Economics,
Bergen, Norway
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which psychological empowerment and
felt obligation can explain variations in personal initiative.
Design/methodology/approach –Employees from a Swedish organization participated in a
web-based survey.
Findings –Psychological empowerment is important for enhancing proactive behavior at work, but its
dimensions relate differently to personal initiative. Felt obligation mediates the relationship between
psychological empowerment and personal initiative, but only for two dimensions of empowerment
(meaningfulness and competence).
Originality/value –The paper contributes to our understanding of how employees’feeling of obligation
explains one form of proactive behavior. It also highlights the overlooked distinctiveness of psychological
empowerment dimensions in predicting personal initiative at work.
Keywords Psychological empowerment, Personal initiative, Felt obligation
Paper type Research paper
Psychological empowerment was first introduced as a scientific concept about 40 years ago
(Kanter, 1977), and has during the years been highly influential both in scientific research
and in practical life. Research reveals that the phenomenon has had a huge impact on
human resource management in many different types of organizations. For instance, almost
all larger organizations have implemented some form of empowerment initiative (Lawler
et al., 2001; Seibert et al., 2011). In addition, recent research reports robust positive effects of
psychological empowerment across industries, occupations and culturally distinct regions
(Erdogan et al., 2018; Seibert et al., 2011; Li et al., 2017).
Spreitzer (1995) introduced what is so far the most discussed multidimensional
conceptualization for the construct. Four central cognitions were identified: meaning,
self-determination, competence and impact. Spreitzer et al. (1997) have argued that the four
dimensionsof psychological empowerment are onlyable to function as an antecedent together.
This suggests a conceptualization of empowerment as a single second-order construct made
up of the four cognitions. However, other research implies that the dimensions of
empowerment might differ in their predictive power and strength when coupled with work
behaviorsand attitudes, includinginitiative (Liden and Tewksbury,1995; Shin and Kim, 2015).
Recent research reveals that empowered employees are more proactive compared to
others, and thus more likely to engage in different forms of proactive behavior (Parker, 2007;
Pulakos et al., 2000; Shin and Kim, 2015). It has therefore been suggested that psychological
empowerment is more or less a necessary condition for the existence of personal initiative
(Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Scant research effort, however, has been allocated to
investigating this relationship. So, in this study we are particularly interested in the capacity
of psychological empowerment to trigger personal initiative, which is one of the most
important forms of proactive behavior.
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 41 No. 4, 2019
pp. 662-677
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-11-2017-0273
Received 19 November 2017
Revised 2 September 2018
Accepted 30 October 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
662
ER
41,4
Applying Spreitzer’s conceptualization of psychological empowerment, we focus on
how the construct relates to proactive behavior in the workplace. Specifically, we
investigate if the four dimensions of psychological empowerment display different or
similar relationships with initiative. This is important because although the literature
points to a general positive relationship, it remains to be determined if and how each
dimension relates to personal initiative at work. As implied by previous research (Liden
and Tewksbury, 1995; Shin and Kim, 2015), personal initiative might actually not be able
to capitalize equally on each dimension of empowerment. It is a major aim of the current
study to clarify this issue further.
In addition to investigating the relationship between empowerment and initiative, the
study also introduces the hypothesis that felt obligation will mediate the relationship.
Felt obligation shares characteristics with a series of other motivational variables including
psychological ownership, psychological contracts, involvement and engagement. All
involve some form of bond between the employee and the work organization. Research
conducted by Parker et al. (2006) and Hartog and Belschak (2007) suggests that felt
obligation could be a key mediating variable in the relationship between empowerment
and initiative. For instance, Parker et al. (2006) noted that employees with a high felt
responsibility for change often perceive taking charge positively. The explanation for this is
that felt responsibility provides a sense of personal satisfaction and accomplishment in
such a context (see also Morrison and Phelps, 1999). In addition, Frese and Fay (2001)
observed that felt responsibility is also able to predict several other forms of proactive
behavior. Moreover, Hartog and Belschak (2007) reported that obligation explains unique
variance in personal initiative. They also noted that it explains variance in both self- and
manager-rated initiatives.
Based on these findings, we develop a model specifying the intermediate state that we
think mediates the observed empowerment–outcome relationships. Direct measures of
the hypothesized mediational states allow us to shed more light than in previous studies on
the mechanisms underlying the purported effects of psychological empowerment.
Theory and hypotheses
Psychological empowerment
Empowerment describes “people’s belief in their capabilities to mobilize the motivation,
cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control over given events”
(Ozer and Bandura, 1990, p. 472). It comprises individual cognitions and perceptions that
constitute feelings of behavioral and psychological investment in work (Conger and
Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995). This conceptualization is distinct from a view of
empowerment as simply a set of managerial practices focused on the delegation of
responsibilities. Psychological empowerment refers to the psychological state that
allows individuals to feel a sense of control in their work (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990;
Spreitzer, 1995, 2008).
On the basis of the work of Thomas and Velthouse (1990), Spreitzer (1995) defined
psychological empowerment as intrinsic task motivation reflecting a sense of control in
relation to one’s work. She described it in terms of an orientation to the employee’swork
role that is manifested in four cognitions: meaning, self-determination, competence and
impact. Meaning refers to the alignment between the demands of one’s work role and one’s
own beliefs, values and standards. Self-determination is one’s sense of having choices
concerning the initiation or regulation of one’s actions. More specifically, it is a “perceived
autonomy in the initiation and continuation of work behaviors and processes such as
making decisions about work methods, pace, and effort”(Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1443).
Competence refers to one’sbeliefinone’s capability to perform work activities
successfully (e.g. self-efficacy). Finally, impact is one’s belief that one can influence
663
Empowerment
and initiative
To continue reading
Request your trial