See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7426660

An Examination of Dimensions of Psychological Empowerment Scale for

Service Employees

Article  in  Psychological Reports · November 2005

DOI: 10.2466/PR0.97.6.667-672 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

14 2,978

3 authors, including:

Murat Hancer Peter B Kim

University of Central Florida Auckland University of Technology
59 PUBLICATIONS   1,801 CITATIONS    61 PUBLICATIONS   1,485 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Benchmarking Service Quality using Two-Dimensional Importance-Performance Benchmark Vectors (IPBV) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Murat Hancer on 02 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

~
Psychological Reports, 2005,97,667 -672. @ Psychological Reports 2005

AN EXAMINATION OF DIMENSIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL

EMPOWERMENT SCALE FOR SERVICE EMPLOYEES 1
MURAT HANCER

School 0/ Tourism and Hotel Management

Adnan Menderes University

R. THOMAS GEORGE, BEOMCHEOL (PETER) KIM

Hospitality Management Program

(
The Ohio State University

Summary.-In the present study the dimensions and factorial structure of the Psy-
chological Empowerment Scale for a sample of 173 restaurant service employees from
20 restaurants in the USA were analyzed, using principal axis factor analysis. The
analysis indicated a two-factor solution for the scale with Cronbach a. of .91 and .89.
These factors were labeled Attitude and Influence and accounted for approximately
63 % of the common variance. This differed from the original four-factor structure of
Spreitzer and in two studies by Fulford and Enz in 1995 and by Hancer and George
in 2003, a three-factor structure. Implications for research and recommendations are
presented.

In the management literature, empowerment has been defined in many

ways by a number of researchers. These definitions often overlapped the def-
initions of sharing power with or moving power (Kanter, 1979), participative
management (Lawler, 1988), and job enrichment (Hackman & Oldham,
1980). Many early definitions treated empowerment as being a one-dimen-
sional construct and equated empowerment with self-efficacy (Conger & Ka-
nungo, 1988) or self-determination/autonomy (Burke, 1986; Neilsen, 1986;
Macher, 1988; Liden, Wayne, Sparrowe, & Bradway, 1993). The increasing
practice of empowering organizational members through various management
practices has encouraged researchers to investigate the construct of empower-
ment further (Kanungo, 1992). For example, Spreitzer (1992, 1995) utilized
prior research by Conger and Kanungo (1988) and Thomas and Velthouse
(1990) to focus on psychological empowerment as individual experience.
Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason (1997) suggested that the validity of the psy-
chological empowerment construct has been examined in recent research,
however, a better understanding of its multidimensional nature is still need-
ed (Spreitzer, etal., 1997, p. 680).
Psychological Empowerment and Service Employees
Psychological empowerment is considered as one of the vital compo-
'Please address correspondence to R. Thomas George, Ed.D., 315F Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil
Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210 or e-mail (george.2@osu.edu).
668 M. HANCER, ET AI.

nents of the managerial practices utilized in the service industry (Bowen &
Lawler, 1992, 1995; Fulford & Enz, 1995). It is often believed that empow-
ering employees ultimately leads to increased profitability, while improving
customers' satisfaction (Brymer, 1991). Empowerment, defined by Conger
and Kanungo (1988), is a motivational process whereby employees' self-effi-
cacy is enhanced, enabling them to accomplish work more effectively and ef-
ficiently or achieve their goals successfully. Thomas and Velthouse (1990, p.
667), in extending this idea, conceptualized empowerment as ". . . changes in
cognitive variables (called task assessments) which determine motivation in
workers." These task assessments were referred to as competence (self-effica-
cy), task meaningfulness, choice, and impact. Spreitzer (1995), expanding on
the work of Thomas and Velthouse, defined psychological empowerment as
a construct composed of four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-deter-
mination and influence, reflecting employees' active orientation to their work
roles. Meaning involves the fit between an employee's values, beliefs, and
work role requirements (Spreitzer, 1995). Competence or self-efficacy is an
employee's belief in personal capability to perform activities with skill (Gist,
1987). Self-determination means autonomy in the initiation and continuation
of work behaviors or processes (Bell & Staw, 1989). Impact refers to how
much an employee can influence strategy, administrative, or operating out-
comes at work (Ashford, 1989).
Findings for the examination of specific dimensions and resulting factor
structure of psychological empowerment have varied across studies in the ser-
vice industries. Among those studies, two of them specifically investigated
the factor structure of the construct and its dimensions for restaurant service
employees. Fulford and Enz (1995) assessed its effect on the attitudes of em-
ployees in several service-based organizations. Using Spreitzer's 12-item scale
(1995), with minor word changes, they collected 297 surveys from service
employees working in 30 private membership clubs in the USA. The scale
was factor analyzed using a principal component method with varimax rota-
tion. Fulford and Enz (1995, p. 165) noted that, although meaning and
competence dimensions each emerged as individual scales, the dimensions of
self-determination and influence collapsed into a single factor, which they
named influence for the sample of service employees in private clubs.
Hancer and George (2003) used a variation of the scale for psychologi-
cal empowerment originally created by Spreitzer (1992, 1995). Nonsupervi-
sory employees working in full service restaurant chains were targeted in the
study. Using principal component method with varimax rotation, a three-fac-
tor structure was identified in Hancer and George's study as well. The fac-
tor structure of their study was nearly identical to that found by Fulford and
Enz (1995). One question (Question 4) was dropped from the original scale
given the low correlation. In both studies, the characteristics of the subject
 PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT SCALE 669

groups were comparable, and the empioyees performed similar activities. It

was not unexpected that the results might be similar. The Spreitzer study
(1995) involved individuals in manufacturing and insurance.
It was the intent of the present study to assess whether the three-factor
structure of psychological empowerment would hold for a sample of em-
ployees working in service-related functions in the quick-casual segment of
the restaurant industry. Based on the functions performed and the custom-
ers' contact orientation, it was hypothesized that the three-factor structure
would hold.
METHOD

Sample
A total of 575 questionnaires were sent to 39 quick-casual restaurants
with a return of 173 questionnaires, 29.6%, from 20 restaurants. Female re-
spondents comprised 46.2% of the respondents and men 53.8%. The aver-
age age was 23.2 yr., with 88% being less than 30 years of age.
Procedure
The general managers and owners (franchisees) of the restaurants were
responsible for the distribution and collection of the questionnaires. The an-
onymity of the participants was assured. Participants were instructed to place
the completed questionnaire in a provided envelope, seal it, and return it to
the general manager or owner who would then put all the surveys in a self-
addressed, stamped return envelope provided by the researchers. Instructions
were given to the general managers or owners to mail the survey packets di-
rectly to the researchers' address to guarantee confidentiality of the partici-
pants.
Measure
Spreitzer's 12-item scale (1995), with slight word changes, for measur-
ing psychological empowerment was used. The original scale included four
distinct factors with the modified version identifying three factors. Each item
was presented with a 7-point response format, anchored by 1: strongly dis-
agree and 7: strongly agree. An example item from each subscale is "My
work is important to me" (Meaning), "I am confident about my ability to
do my job" (Competence), and "I have influence over what happens in my
work" (Influence).
RESULTS
Principal axis factor analysis with oblique rotation was performed with
the 12-item questionnaire. Items with eigenvalue loadings greater than .60
were retained in each factor. In addition to the eigenvalue criterion, the scree
plot was also visually inspected to decide how many factors should be re-
670 M. HANCER, ET AL.

tained. Two-factors were identified (Table 1). Items 7 to 9 (Self-determina-

tion) and Items 10 to 12 (Impact) were combined into a single factor and
named Influence. The total variance explained by this factor was 51.1 %.
Items 1 through 3 (Meaning) and Items 4 through 6 (Competence) also
emerged as a single factor. The combined factor was named "Attitude,"
since the six items encompassing both Meaning and Competence seek to as-
sess feelings of employees toward the job and self-belief that they possess
the skills and abilities to do it well. The percent of total variance explained
I
r
by the second factor was 12%. Cumulative variance explained by these two )
factors was 63.1 %. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the total scale was .89
for the present study.
TABLE 1
PRlNCIPAL AxIS FACTOR ANALYSIS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWEfu"1ENT
SCALE FOR SERVICE EMPLOYEES (N = 173)

Psychological Empowerment Scale Factor 1 Factor 2

Influence Attitude
12. I have a great deal of control over my job. .91 -.13
10. I have influence over what happens in my work group. .84 .01
7. My opinion counts in the work group decision making. .81 .06
8. I have freedom in determining how to do my job. .76 .03
9. I have a chance to use personal initiative in my work. .70 .22
11. I decide how to go about doing my work. .69 .03
1. My work is important to me. .01 .88
5. I am confident about my ability to do my job. .14 .87
3. I care about what I do on my job. .13 .74
4. My job is well within the scope of my abilities. .03 .73
6. I have mastered the skills to do my job. .02 .67
2. My job activities are meaningful to me. .24 .60
Eigenvalue 6.13 1.44
% of Variance 51.1 12.0
Cronbach Alpha .91 .89

To make a comparison with the Fulford and Enz (1995) and Hancer
and George (2003) studies, the data were re-examined using principal com-
ponent analysis with varimax rotation. The individual items again loaded as
two factors containing the same scale items. The ordering of individual items
was nearly identical to placement as when using principal axis factor analysis
with oblique rotation.
DISCUSSION
The restaurant industry employs a wide variety of individuals who often
have short tenure with the organization. There is a nearly side-by-side work-
ing relationship with supervisors and mangers. At the same time, employees
are often required to 'make decisions at the point of service. Psychological
 PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT SCALE 671
. .

empowerment, as a form of intrinsic motivation, may add to the ability and

willingness of the service provider to act. It is also important for managers
and supervisors to understand what contributes to psychological empower-
ment so that they may better encourage the service provider.
Factor analysis has been used to examine and group a larger number of
dimensions into smaller and more identifiable factors. In developing the
, questionnaire used in the present study, Spreitzer (1992, 1995) arrived at a
~

1 four-factor structure while concentrating on individuals working in manufac-

\1
turing and insurance. When examining professionals from a variety of orga-
nizations, Vardi (2000) found strong support for the four-factor structure of
psychological empowerment. Seigall and Gardner (2000) surveyed over 200
lower-level manufacturing employees. They found a three-factor structure
comprising meaning, competence, and impact, with self-determination not
clearly emerging. With additional examination they were able to add self-de-
termination to the structure.
While previous studies of restaurant employees (Fulford & Enz, 1995;
Hancer & George, 2003) identified a three-factor structure, (meaning and
competence with self-determination and impact combining to be renamed
influence), the present study found two factors, Attitude (Meaning + Compe-
tence); Influence (Self-determination + Impact). This may represent how em-
ployees view the job tasks and their belief they have the competence to per-
form well in fast-casual restaurants where employees are cross-trained and
performing multitask jobs.
If psychological empowerment is to be seen as contributing to intrinsic
motivation, it will continue to be important to define further the construct
and the factors contributing to it. The difference in results of the presented
studies confirms Spreitzer's suggestion (1995) that more work is necessary
on the discriminant validity of the four scales. The need to re-examine the
factor structure depending on the occupational group being studied is evi-
dent. Care must be taken when comparing the factor structure that, if addi-
tional items are added, it may change the structure.
In previous studies of restaurant service providers, a three-factor struc-
ture of psychological empowerment was identified. The intent of the present
study was to continue the examination of psychological empowerment and
to assess whether the three-factor structure would continue to hold for em-
I ployees in a different foodservice setting. It did not; consequently, additional
I work is needed to evaluate whether either a two- or three-factor structure is
more appropriate for such employees. We suggest that additional studies
..I might seek samples from multiple foodservice organizations. Comparison of
scores on the dimensions of individuals working in different job categories
should be completed. These evaluations would contribute to a better under-
standing of to extent to which the nature of the job attracts persons who
 672 M. HANCER, ET AL.

differ in feelings of psychological empowerment. Furthermore, comparisons

should be made with employees in other service-related industries. This
study was limited to an examination of a sample of employees of one restau-
rant chain. In addition, the generalizability of the findings is restricted, since
a convenience sample was studied.
REFERENCES'
ASHFORTH,B. E. (1989) The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Be-
havior and HZ/man Decision Processes, 43,207-242.
BELL,N. E., &STAW,B. M. (1989) People as sculptors versus sculpture: the roles of personality
and personal control in organizations. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence
(Eds.), Handbook 0/ career theory. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 232-251.
BOWEN,D. E., & LAWLER,E. E. (1992) The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how,
and when. Sloan "\Ianagement Review, 33(3), 31-39.
BOWEN,D. E., & LAWLER,E. E. (1995) Empowering service employees. Sloan Management Re-
view, 36(4), 73-84.
BRYMER,R. A. (1991) Employee empowerment: a guest driven leadership strategy. Cornell Ho-
tel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 58-68.
BURKE,W (1986) Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastva (Ed.), Executive power.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 51-77.
CONGER,J. A., & KANUNGO,R. N. (1988) The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice. Academy 0/ Management Review, 31, 471-482.
FULFORD,M. D., &ENZ, C. A. (1995) The impact of empowerment on service employees. Jour-
nal o/Managerial Issues, 7,161-175.
GIST, M. E. (1987) Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management. Academy 0/ Management Review, 12,472-485.
HACKMAN, J. R., &OWHAM, G. R. (1980) Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
HANCER,M., & GEORGE,R. T. (2003) Psychological empowerment of non-supervisory employ-
ees working in full-service restaurants. International Journal 0/ Hospitality Management,
22, 3-16.
KANTER,R. M. (1979) Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, July-
August, 65-75.
KANUNGO,R. (1992) Alienation and empowerment: some ethical imperatives in business. Jour-
nal 0/ Business Ethics, 11,413-422.
LAWLER,E. E. (1988) Strategies for involvement. Academy 0/ Management Executive, 2, 197-
204.
LIDEN,R. c., WAYNE,S. J., SPARROWE,R. T., &BRADWAY,L. (1993) Empowerment and effective-
ness study. feedback report. (Technical Report 1) Chicago, IL: Center for Human Re-
source Management, Univer. of Illinois.
MACHER,K. (1988) Empowerment and the bureaucracy. Training and Development Journal, 42
(9),41-45.
NEILSEN,E. H. (1986) Empowerment strategies: balancing authority and responsibility. In S.
Srivastva (Ed.), Executive power. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 78-110.
SEIGALL,M., & GARDNER,S. (2000) Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Person-
nel Review, 29, 703-722.
SPREITZER,G. M. (1992) When organizations dare: the dynamics of psychological empower-
ment in the workplace. Unpublished dissertation, The Univer. of Michigan.
SPREITZER,G. M. (1995) Individual empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement,
validation. Academy 0/ Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
SPREITZER,G. M., KIZILOS, M. A., & NASON, S. W. (1997) A dimensional analysis of the rela-
tionship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain.
Journal 0/ Management, 23, 679-704.
THOMAS,K. W, & VELTHOUSE,B. A. (1990) Cognitive elements of empowerment: an interpre-
tive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy 0/ Management Review, 15, 666-681.
VARD!,Y. (2000) Psychological empowerment as a criterion for adjustment to a new job. Psy-
chological Reports, 87, 1083-1093

Accepted September 12, 2005.

View publication stats