The Mediating Effect of Employee Engagement: How Employee Psychological Empowerment Impacts the Employee Satisfaction? A Study of Maldivian Tourism Sector

Abstract

This study aims to examine the mediation of employee engagement on the relationship between employee psychological empowerment and employee job satisfaction, which helps to retain more customers with better service. An empirical analysis was done on Maldivian resorts, and 243 employees were randomly selected from different resorts in the Maldives. The proposed model was tested using IBM SPSS AMOS 25. The results indicate that psychological empowerment had a significant effect on job satisfaction of the resort employees through employee engagement. The Maldivian economy is based on the tourism sector, and a significant amount of gross domestic product (GDP) depends on the tourism sector. Resorts and guesthouses are the power hubs for the economic development of the country, and employees are the primary source of service providers to tourists, which helps the resorts to retain their tourists. Hence, this study concludes that employees’ psychological empowerment and employees’ engagement are crucial to improve employee satisfaction.

Keywords

Employee engagement psychological empowerment employee satisfaction Maldivian resorts

Introduction

Psychological empowerment is an intrinsic motivation that an individual derives from autonomy at work. It comprises of four dimensions, that is, meaning, impact, self-determination and competence. It is recognized as a critical contributor to organizational success. When employees are empowered at work, it will lead to better job performance and organization commitment (Lee et al., 2018). Empowerment of employees most often helps them to change their attitude towards their jobs and about their organization (Ghaniyoun et al., 2017). Job satisfaction and engagement are directly influenced by empowerment (Dewettinck & van Ameijde. 2011). Conger and Kanungo (1988) define psychological empowerment as ‘a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organisational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organisational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information’. Conger et al. (2000) state that psychological empowerment is a progression of persons’ insight into their success in contrast with the relevant others in their organization. Empowerment is an intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination and impact (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Meaning refers to the employees understanding the value of the task based on their standards or ideas. It is mainly based on the interest of the task that includes job requirements and employees’ values and beliefs (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Spreitzer, 1995). Competence is related to the employee’s ability to perform the task with skills. Self-determination is reflecting the work behaviour of the individual who has a sense of autonomy to regulate the work (Chawla et al., 2017; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Impact refers to the level of individual influence on strategic, managerial or functional outcomes at work. The impact highly positively influences organizational performance; employees who believe they can affect the organizational system and outcomes are inclined to be more positively motivated. Empowerment at the workplace is essential for organizations to respond quickly to the changes in the organizational environment (Jha, 2010; Morin et al., 2016), which directly leads to enhanced job enrichment (Moura et al., 2015; Yang & Lee, 2009).

Employee engagement concept was evolved from the burnout concept and characterized from self-efficacy, involvement and energy of the employees which are negatively related to burnout dimensions such as exhaustion and self-disengagement (Schaufeli et al., 2008; Taris et al., 2017). Employee engagement is defined as linking the members of the organization to the employment role (Maslach & Leiter, 2016; Schaufeli et al., 2008; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010). Vigour, dedication and absorption are the three characteristics of employee engagement (Bakker et al., 2008; Gupta & Sharma, 2016). Vigour is explained by mental resilience in the job, high level of energy and willingness to invest more effort in handling difficulties in the job. Dedication is explained by a sense of meaning, interest, motivation and challenge. Absorption is when an employee is focused and engrossed in his or her job and finds it very difficult to be detached at work. From this, it can be concluded that employee engagement is the central concept to improve the organizational effectiveness (Christian et al., 2011; Harter et al., 2002; Mishra & Mohanty, 2016; Stander & Rothmann, 2010).

Problem Statement

In Maldives, tourism accounts for more than 28 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and significantly contributes to the economic development of the country. It plays a significant role in generating foreign exchange revenue and creates employment in the tertiary sector of the country. In recent years, Maldivian companies have been experiencing numerous accounts of employee dissatisfaction. The local news has reported multiple cases of employee strike across the Maldives (Mansoor & Hassan, 2016). This discontent seems to derive mostly from the hotel and tourism industry, which is the primary source of income for the country. These complaints and discontent range from unfair distributions of service charges, disappointing accommodations, differences in salaries, neglect, disrespect, discrimination and disputes with management. This openly indicates that the hospitality and tourism industries have specific areas for improving the management in employee expectations. It seems very relevant and essential to acquire knowledge on employee engagement as well as how to introduce a culture of engagement in a long-standing and manageable way. Another reason for this study is that Maldives is going to the next phase of tourism development, which will attract more international brands to the sectors. For this reason, employees are considered as the greatest asset in this sector (Küçükergin & Dedeoğlu, 2014). The total tourist satisfaction is created by all services and products associated with tourism destination. In the tourism and hospitality industry, the tourist experience is created by both product and services (Pizam & Ellis, 1999; Pizam et al., 2013). The competitive advantage of many tourism destinations is increased by an increase in tourist satisfaction level (Belias et al., 2017; Kandampully & Duddy, 2001; Khalili et al., 2016; Molina-Azorín et al., 2015), and it helps the Maldivian hospitality industry to maintain long-term relationship with tourists (Armenski et al., 2018; Rahimi & Kozak, 2017). Also, the need of empowered employees in tourism sector is increasing as it is one of the important factors which affect their job satisfaction (Tetik, 2016).

Employment in the tourism sector was of significant concern for academics and policymakers in developing and developed countries. However, it was not appropriately addressed in the Maldives with proper empirical evidence, mainly in the tourism and hospitality sector. Managers in hospitality industry are facing challenges in attracting, selecting, motivating and retaining workforce, which are imperative for providing a high-quality product and services to the increasingly discerning and demanding tourists. Hence, there is a need to understand the employee engagement and how hospitality sector employees’ engagement affects their psychological empowerment and job satisfaction.

Aim and Objective

This study aims to address the few selected human resource (HR) issues (psychological empowerment of employee, employee engagement and job satisfaction) that have to be undertaken in order to maintain a competitive advantage for the tourism sector in Maldives. This study will be beneficial for both literature and tourism and hospitality industry representatives, by addressing the mediating impact on employee engagement in enhancing the relationship between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction of the employees working in Maldivian resorts.

Review of Literature

Psychological Empowerment and Employee Engagement

Employee engagement and psychological empowerment are imperative in dealing through deviations at work and increasing organizational effectiveness (Kahn, 1990; Ugwu et al., 2014). When employees feel empowered at work, they display positive affective commitment, which leads to positive work engagement and lesser intentions to quit. When employees find meaning in their work, they display more attachment towards their work, which fosters engagement (Jose & Mampilly, 2014). Psychological empowerment has a positive correlation with employee engagement; the study also discovered that empowerment would increase team’s performance (Jose & Mampilly, 2014, 2015; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Studies found that psychological empowerment estimates work engagement, and psychological empowerment leads to greater involvement in a primarily unexciting activity and increased positive feelings towards the activity (De Villiers & Stander, 2011; Moura et al., 2015). Therefore, psychological empowerment includes the beliefs of employees about the meaning of their work and their ability to successfully perform their job, their sense of autonomy and their capacity to impact the job outcome (Kruja et al., 2016; Sharma & Singh, 2018).

Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction

Psychological empowerment has a significant impact on individuals and organizations. Highly empowered employees value their job, and the level of job satisfaction is high, and productivity will be greater (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2015; Hanaysha & Tahir, 2016; Pelit et al., 2011). Many studies conclude that employee satisfaction is one of the outcomes of employee engagement and employee psychological empowerment (Al-Ababneh et al., 2017; Harter et al., 2002; Lu et al., 2016). Psychological empowerment enhances job satisfaction. Studies conclude that employee psychological empowerment components have a significant and positive relation to employee satisfaction (Casey et al., 2010; Pelit et al., 2011; Schermuly et al., 2011). Some studies explain that turnover intentions were negatively influenced by employee psychological empowerment and employee engagement (Bhatnagar, 2012; Lu et al., 2016). However, job satisfaction is also negatively influencing turnover intentions (Ellickson & Logsdon, 2002; Hanaysha & Tahir, 2016). This discussion proves that both employee psychological empowerment and employee engagement act as a significant predictor of job satisfaction (Stander & Rothmann, 2010; Wong Humborstad & Perry, 2011). Few literatures argue that employee psychological empowerment acts as a mediator between the relationship between organizational context and job satisfaction (Carless, 2004; Choi et al., 2016; Fong & Snape, 2015; Krishnan, 2012; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Tsemach, 2014). Job satisfaction is the results of employees’ perceived feeling of psychological empowerment; impact and meaning dimensions of psychological empowerment help to increase the overall positive feelings of job satisfaction (Spector, 1997). When employees are meaningful to their job, they can derive a high level of satisfaction for their work (Laschinger et al., 2004; Wang & Lee, 2009). Employees’ outcome can be impacted by the personal feeling towards the organization, which helps to develop a sense of job satisfaction (He et al., 2010; Wang & Lee, 2009). Competence empowerment helps employees to understand their competence towards the job, which will help them to feel comfortable in their job (Al-Ababneh et al., 2017; Laschinger et al., 2004).

Employee Engagement and Job Satisfaction

Employee engagement could be a better source to create competitive advantages (Macey et al., 2011; Noe et al., 2017). Many studies conclude that employee engagement acts as a mediator between organizational variables, such as leadership (Alfes et al., 2013), employee attitude (Popli & Rizvi, 2016; Yalabik et al., 2013), employee commitment (Gupta, 2017), organizational support (Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013), employee psychological empowerment (Jose & Mampilly, 2014), personality (Sulea et al., 2012) and organizational performance (Muduli et al., 2016). Studies also conclude that job satisfaction is one of the antecedents of job performance (Hsieh, 2016). Highly engaged employees have a strong sense of belongingness with the organization, and their turnover intention is low. As we discussed already, job satisfaction is negatively related to turnover intentions (Memon et al., 2016). For higher productivity, higher performance and higher satisfaction, employee engagement is essential (Brunetto et al., 2012; Collini et al., 2015). In this competitive world, employee engagement can be attained positively in combination with employee psychological empowerment to yield higher employee satisfaction (Figure 1; Macey et al., 2011; Shuck et al., 2011).

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Empirical Model

Research has often shown that when employees feel empowered at work, they are connected to better performance, job satisfaction and organizational engagement. Most organizations today still seek to empower their employees by delegating control and decision-making, sharing information and seeking their feedback (Lee et al., 2018). Recent studies have emphasised on the significance of providing autonomy and empowerment to employees at work; these techniques can be used to enhance employees’ performance in the organisation (Kundu et al., 2019). Empowered employees positively influence creativity much more effectively than repetitive job efficiency. Managers also are more likely to have faith in their subordinates by encouraging workers than managers who do not empower their employees, which also increases employees’ engagement and satisfaction (Wang & Lee, 2009). These literature discussions clear the relationship between psychological empowerment, employee engagement and employee satisfaction. The above-mentioned conceptual model was developed based on these discussions.

Methods

Measures

The scales administered in this research was adopted from previous literature, and it ensures content validity. The measurements for employee psychological empowerment were adopted from Spreitzer (1995) and includes four core dimensions such as meaning, competence, self-defemination and impact items, and each dimension includes three items, whereas the employee engagement items were adopted from employee engagement scale used by Rich et al. (2010) and adopted from Kahn (1990) consist of 18 items and categorized into three sub-scales, namely physical, emotional and cognitive engagement. Each engagement sub-scale includes six items. The job satisfaction items were adopted from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire developed by Weiss et al. (1977). This scale consists of 20 items, which are classified into three sub-dimensions, namely intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction and general satisfaction. Respondents were asked to rate their psychological empowerment and employee engagement using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5). The job satisfaction scale uses the five response choices starting from ‘very satisfied’ (5) to ‘very dissatisfied’ (1).

Sample Frame

The target population for this study is employees working in various departments in various Maldivian resorts. Every participant was informed about the aim and purpose of the research, and respondents were informed about the confidentiality, anonymity and data security. Participants’ official email IDs were taken from the resorts. The consent form was included in the first page of the online questionnaire, 322 participants responded to the online survey, only 242 completed and cleaned data were used for analysis purposes. From the sample, participants were predominately male (59%), and 52 per cent of the participants were between 26–35 years of age. Overall, 76 per cent of the participants had 0–5 years’ experience in the tourism industry, and their average monthly income was MVR 10,101.314. The validity and reliability of the constructs were tested using IBM SPSS AMOS 25. Since the sample size is relatively larger, and achieving multivariate normality is problematic, AMOS will be a useful application to evaluate the measurement model and structural model. Thus, the maximum likelihood estimation with bootstrapping was used to obtain an accurate estimation of standard errors (Arifin & Yusoff, 2016) as reflected in p values and confidence intervals with bootstrap samples of 2000. The bias-corrected confidence interval was set at the 95 per cent confidence level. For theory confirmation, covariance-based structural equation modeling (SEM) will be more suitable (Hair et al., 2014; Tenenhaus, 2008). Hence, SPSS AMOS 25 was used in this study. In this study, three different human resource management (HRM) concepts were used, and the validity and reliability were tested individually, and three measurement models were tested, and the detailed results are discussed in the following section.

Analysis

Maximum likelihood estimation method was used to analyse the measurement model and structural model, which is highly depending on multivariate analysis. Since the sample size is big, and achieving multivariate normality is problematic, the maximum likelihood estimation with bootstrapping was used to obtain an accurate estimation of standard errors (Arifin & Yusoff, 2016) as reflected in p values and confidence intervals with bootstrap samples of 2000. The bias-corrected confidence interval was set at the 95 per cent confidence level.

The standardized factor loading (β) of the individual items in three research variables (Independent, Dependent and Mediator) are all above 0.50 and significant at 1 percentage level (see Figures 2 –4), which shows the convergent validity, and all the items were used in the current research (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Hair et al., 2013).

Table 1.

Psychological Empowerment Reliability and Validity Measures

Constructs	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR (H)	1	2	3	4
Meaning	0.95	0.87	0.7	0.954	0.932
Competence	0.91	0.77	0.53	0.912	0.726**	0.879
Impact	0.9	0.75	0.08	0.924	0.222**	0.216**	0.867
Self-determination	0.88	0.71	0.7	0.881	0.837**	0.719**	0.290**	0.84

Source: The authors.

Note: **p < 0.01.

Figure 2.

Source: Extracted from SPSS AMOS.

Table 2.

Job Satisfaction Reliability and Validity Measures

Constructs	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR (H)	1	2	3
Intrinsic satisfaction	0.95	0.59	0.16	0.951	0.768
Extrinsic satisfaction	0.89	0.57	0.04	0.902	0.186*	0.755
General satisfaction	0.81	0.68	0.16	0.843	0.398**	0.193*	0.826

Source: The authors.

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Tables 1 –3 shows that the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each measure is above 0.5, which means that more than half of the variances observed in the dimensions were accounted for research constructs, and it exceeds the threshold value of 0.5 or above (Hair et al., 2013), and it reveals the convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). It is also supported by the composite reliability (CR) for each measure, which is higher than the threshold value of 0.7 or above (Hair et al., 2013). The analysis reveals the reliability and validity of the three research variables, included in the study. Tables 1 –3 show that maximum shared variance (MSV) is less than AVE, maximum reliability (Max R(H)) is higher than CR, AVE and the square root of AVE higher than inter-construct correlations, which support the discriminant validity of the constructs (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and concludes that each construct is unique in this research.

Table 3.

Employee Engagement Reliability and Validity Measures

Constructs	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR (H)	1	2	3
Emotional engagement	0.91	0.64	0.19	0.931	0.799
Cognitive engagement	0.91	0.64	0.05	0.932	0.227**	0.801
Physical engagement	0.88	0.57	0.19	0.912	0.431**	0.163*	0.753

Source: The authors.

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Figure 3.

Source: Extracted from SPSS AMOS.

Figure 4.

Source: Extracted from SPSS AMOS.

The measurement models show an adequate fit because the Chi-square/Df (c²/df) is between the cut of range 1–5. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values were closer to the threshold of 0.90. RMSEA and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) values were less than the critical value of 0.08. The Goodness Fit Index (GFI) values were close to the threshold of 0.9, and Adjusted Good Fit Index (AGFI) values were higher to the limit of 0.8, and the results were supported by Hair et al. (2013) and Hu and Bentler (1999). The confirmatory factor analysis exhibits a satisfactory fit of the model to the data. The structural model results were shown in Figures 5 –7. Based on the earlier discussion, the three structural models exhibit a satisfactory fit of the model to the data.

Common Method Variance (CMV) was defined as the ‘variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the construct of interest’ (Bagozzi & Yi, 1991). Each research work should undergo checking for CMV. Presence of any unchecked CMV in research can undermine a study’s potential results and may be problematic in survey research (Craighead et al., 2011). Here, we did a post-survey analysis to check the CMV; in this article, the common latent factor was used to capture the CMV among all observed variables in the models (Lindell & Whitney, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2010). The common latent variable was connected as a market variable. The specific bias test results in Table 4 conclude that the chi-square test for the zero-constrained model was significant (i.e., measurable bias was detected). Therefore, a bias distribution test was made (of equal constraints). The chi-square test is significant on this test as well (i.e., unevenly distributed bias); as per the literature, we should retain the common latent construct for subsequent causal analyses (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012). This equal specific bias demonstrated unevenly distributed bias.

The conceptual model was tested after verification of reliability and validity of the instrument. Before administering the mediation model, it is necessary to check the conditions recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986).

Those conditions are (1) independent variables have significant effects on the dependent variable and the mediator; (2) the mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable; and (3) the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable diminish after the effects of the mediator are controlled for.

First, the direct effect was tested to see whether psychological empowerment has a significant impact on job satisfaction, employee engagement, and the results were shown in Figure 1.

Table 4.

Specific Bias Tests

Measurements	Models	Zero Constraints Test		Equal Constraints Test
		χ² (df)	Δχ² (p-value)	χ² (df)	Δχ² (p-value)
Psychological empowerment	Unconstrained model	88.77 (37)	χ² = 39.502 (0.000**)	88.77 (37)	χ² = 39.502 (0.000**)
	Zero constrained model	128.27 (49)		128.27 (48)
Employee engagement	Unconstrained model	297.08 (110)	χ² = 113.44 (0.000**)	297.08 (110)	χ² = 77.78 (0.000**)
	Zero constrained model	410.52 (128)		374.86 (127)
Job satisfaction	Unconstrained model	349.9 (147)	χ² = 122.37 (0.000**)	349.9 (147)	χ² = 137.92 (0.000**)
	Zero constrained model	472.26 (167)		487.82 (166)

Source: The authors.

Note: **p < 0.01.

Figure 5.

Source: Extracted from SPSS AMOS.

Figure 6.

Source: Extracted from SPSS AMOS.

The direct effect concludes that the level of psychological empowerment of the employees have positive effect with job satisfaction (β = 0.385; p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.156, 0.511]), providing support to H2 and the direct model the level of psychological empowerment of the employees have positive effect with employee engagement (β = 0.689; p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.582, 0.777]), providing support to H1 and shows the adequate goodness of fit. The condition (1) was satisfied. To check the condition (2), the direct effect was tested to check the effect of employee engagement on employee satisfaction of the resort employees and the results indicate a positive effect of employee engagement on employee satisfaction (β = 0.440; p <0.001, 95% CI [0.311, 0.567]), providing support for H3 and condition (2).

To check the mediation effect of employee engagement, the mediation model incorporating engagement as a mediator was tested. According to the model fit indices, the model shows the adequate fit. The result indicates that psychological empowerment of the employees had a significant and positive effect on employee engagement (β = 0.671; p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.561, 0.760]). Besides, employee engagement had a significant and positive effect on employee satisfaction (β = 0.386; p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.178, 0.590]). The psychological empowerment of the employees does not have a significant impact on overall employee satisfaction (β = 0.069; p = 0.579). To check the condition (3), all the direct effects (Figures 1 and 2) were compared with those for the mediation model (Figure 3). With the inclusion of employee engagement in the direct model, the effect of psychological empowerment on employee satisfaction decreased from 0.385 to 0.069 and non-significant. The effect of the psychological empowerment becomes non-significant in the presence of the employee engagement as a mediator, and the effect of the psychological empowerment on employee satisfaction is said to be ‘fully’ mediated by the employee engagement.

These results indicate that psychological empowerment had a significant effect on job satisfaction of the resort employees through employee engagement. The finding suggests that employee engagement may be an essential factor in the relationship between employee psychological empowerment and employee satisfaction. Although psychological empowerment of employee had some direct effects, the results suggest that resorts should promote employee’s engagement better. Based on employee engagement as a full mediator, the resorts can enhance job satisfaction.

This study aims to examine the mediation of employee engagement on the relationship between employee psychological empowerment and job satisfaction of employees. An empirical analysis was done on Maldivian resorts to test the proposed conceptual model. The results indicate that psychological empowerment has a significant and direct impact on employee engagement and employee satisfaction. For the mediation model, employee engagement had a full mediating effect on the relationship of employees’ psychological empowerment to their outcome, namely employee job satisfaction. These results highlight the role of employee engagement in the psychological empowerment of resort employees.

Figure 7.

Source: Extracted from SPSS AMOS.

Discussion

When employees have a high level of employee engagement in their jobs, it enables the resorts with superior performance and, in turn, help the resorts to create competitive advantage. Furthermore, highly engaged employees learn more and respond faster and are more creative. Engaged employees are resort ambassadors, and they can provide better service to the guests. Harter et al. (2002), Frank et al. (2004), Saks (2006) and Bailey et al. (2017) studies proved that employee engagement is the significant predictor of employee satisfaction, and our results are consistent with the literature. Engagement helps motivated and committed employees to the next level. Employees with a high level of engagement focus on the organizational goals and the results that the organization demands from them. Firms have the feeling that employees really can commit to the success of the firms, and that all their skills are being employed. Employee engagement and psychological empowerment serve potent approaches to improve productivity and profitability. Valued employees are satisfied employees, and pleasant employees encourage company success. Employees who do not seem happy or satisfied with the job will try another profession (Ugwu et al., 2014). This appears more often than most employees would prefer to admit. When employees seem empowered, the possibilities of employees’ intention of leaving are considerably decreased (Jose & Mampilly, 2014, 2015). Possibly most significant is that employees who are empowered are satisfied, fulfilled and engaged (Stander & Rothmann, 2010).

Implications

This study has significant managerial implications. From the above-stated discussions, it is clear that employee psychological empowerment begins with an increase in job satisfaction and increased engagement, suggesting that resorts should enhance the capacity to make decisions about when they work, how work gets done and what their priorities are (Karatepe, 2013). Because of the critical role performed by employee engagement, resorts should promote employees’ empowerment and develop a link between leaders and employees as strategic objectives. This study also suggests employing the management’s ability to influence employee engagement strategies in an organization. The use of efficient employee engagement strategies may support management in successfully engaging employees and sustaining profitability (Berens, 2013). The resorts should invest more in improving employee engagement strategies, after understanding the link between employee engagement and job satisfaction. Well-developed employee engagement strategies could fill the gap between employee motivation and job performance by including employee requirements (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Even though this research was done in the Maldivian tourism sector, these study results could be generalized to other service-related industries like lodging, food and beverage service, event planning, transportation, telecommunication and additional fields within the hospitality industry. Since the tourism and hospitality industry plays a significant role in the Maldivian service industry, these HR practices (psychological empowerment of employee, employee engagement and job satisfaction) could be used as benchmarking strategy by other service industries to improve their performances. The present study has provided new insights into the mediating role of employee engagement on the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee satisfaction with regard to the service sector.

Conclusion

Maldives is primarily based on the tourism sector, where a significant amount of GDP depends on the tourism sector (The World Bank Group, 2019). Resorts and guesthouses are the power hubs for the economic development of the country, and employees are the primary source of service providers to tourists, which helps the resorts to retain their tourist population (He et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2017). Hence, this study concludes that employee psychological empowerment and employee engagement are crucial to improve employee satisfaction.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has a few limitations. There are more than 100 operating resorts in Maldives and result generalization is limited by the sample size, and therefore, it is challenging to form generalized implications. In this regard, further research should focus on more samples from different levels of resorts and guesthouses, which may help produce more precise implications of the missing link. The second limitation of this study is mediator usage. In this study, employee engagement was used as a mediator; there might be some other variables, which could be used as mediator such us employee commitment (Han et al., 2016), organization trust (Ugwu et al., 2014), job insecurity (Stander & Rothmann, 2010), perceived supervisor support (Jose & Mampilly, 2015) and organizational citizenship behaviour (Chiang & Hsieh, 2012) that also mediate the relationship between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. Other mediators need to be investigated in future research. The last limitation is about the data analysis; Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling was used in this study to test the proposed model; In this regard, other comparative approaches such as the partial least squares method should be used in future studies, to get more robust results (Astrachan et al., 2014).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors of this study are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful comments and suggestions to improve the quality of this article. Usual disclaimers apply.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Subburaj Alagarsamy

References

Al-Ababneh

, Al-Sabi

, Al-Shakhsheer

, & Masadeh

(2017). The influence of employee empowerment on employee job satisfaction in five-star hotels in Jordan. International Business Research , 10(3), 133–147.

Alfes

, Shantz

A. D.

, Truss

, & Soane

E. C.

(2013). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 24(2), 330–351.

Arifin

W. N.

, & Yusoff

M. S.

(2016). Confirmatory factor analysis of the universiti sains Malaysia emotional quotient inventory among medical students in Malaysia. SAGE Open , 6(2), 2158244016650240.

Armenski

, Dwyer

, & Pavluković

(2018). Destination competitiveness: Public and private sector tourism management in Serbia. Journal of Travel Research , 57(3), 384–398.

Astrachan

C. B.

, Patel

V. K.

, & Wanzenried

(2014). A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for theory development in family firm research. Journal of Family Business Strategy , 5(1), 116–128.

Bagozzi

R. P.

, & Yi

(1991). Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research , 17(4), 426–439.

Bailey

, Madden

, Alfes

, & Fletcher

(2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews , 19(1), 31–53.

Bakker

A. B.

, Schaufeli

W. B.

, Leiter

M. P.

, & Taris

T. W.

(2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress , 22(3), 187–200.

Baron

R. M.

, & Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51(6), 1173.

10.

Bedarkar

, & Pandita

(2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 133, 106–115.

11.

Belias

, Trivellas

, Koustelios

, Serdaris

, Varsanis

, & Grigoriou

(2017). Human resource management, strategic leadership development and the Greek tourism sector. In Vicky

, Upadhya

, & Stratigea

(Eds.), Tourism, culture and heritage in a smart economy (pp. 189–205). Springer.

12.

Berens

(2013). The roots of employee engagement—A strategic approach. Employment Relations Today , 40(3), 43–49.

13.

Bhatnagar

(2012). Management of innovation: Role of psychological empowerment, work engagement and turnover intention in the Indian context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 23(5), 928–951.

14.

Biswas

, & Bhatnagar

(2013). Mediator analysis of employee engagement: Role of perceived organizational support, PO fit, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Vikalpa , 38(1), 27–40.

15.

Brunetto

, Teo

S. T.

, Shacklock

, & Farr-Wharton

(2012). Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, well-being and engagement: Explaining organisational commitment and turnover intentions in policing. Human Resource Management Journal , 22(4), 428–441.

16.

Carless

S. A.

(2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between psychological climate and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology , 18(4), 405–425.

17.

Casey

, Saunders

, & O’HARA

T. E.

(2010). Impact of critical social empowerment on psychological empowerment and job satisfaction in nursing and midwifery settings. Journal of Nursing Management , 18(1), 24–34.

18.

Chawla

, Dokadia

, & Rai

(2017). Multigenerational differences in career preferences, reward preferences and work engagement among Indian employees. Global Business Review , 18(1), 181–197.

19.

Chiang

C. F.

, & 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(1), 180–190.

20.

Choi

S. L.

, Goh

C. F.

, Adam

M. B.

, & Tan

O. K.

(2016). Transformational leadership, empowerment, and job satisfaction: The mediating role of employee empowerment. Human Resources for Health , 14(1), 73.

21.

Christian

M. S.

, Garza

A. S.

, & Slaughter

J. E.

(2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology , 64(1), 89–136.

22.

Collini

S. A.

, Guidroz

A. M.

, & Perez

L. M.

(2015). Turnover in health care: The mediating effects of employee engagement. Journal of Nursing Management , 23(2), 169–178.

23.

Conger

J. A.

, & Kanungo

R. N.

(1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review , 13(3), 471–482.

24.

Conger

J. A.

, Kanungo

R. N.

, & Menon

S. T.

(2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , 21(7), 747–767.

25.

Craighead

C. W.

, Ketchen

D. J.

, Dunn

K. S.

, & Hult

G. T. M.

(2011). Addressing common method variance: Guidelines for survey research on information technology, operations, and supply chain management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 58(3), 578–588.

26.

De Villiers

J. R.

, & Stander

M. W.

(2011). Psychological empowerment, work engagement and turnover intention: The role of leader relations and role clarity in a financial institution. Journal of Psychology in Africa , 21(3), 405–412.

27.

Deci

E. L.

, & Ryan

R. M.

(1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality , 19(2), 109–134.

28.

Dewettinck

, & van Ameijde

(2011). Linking leadership empowerment behaviour to employee attitudes and behavioural intentions: Testing the mediating role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review , 40(3), 284–305.

29.

Ellickson

M. C.

, & Logsdon

(2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees. Public Personnel Management , 31(3), 343–358.

30.

Fernandez

, & Moldogaziev

(2015). Employee empowerment and job satisfaction in the US Federal Bureaucracy: A self-determination theory perspective. The American Review of Public Administration , 45(4), 375–401.

31.

Fong

K. H.

, & Snape

(2015). Empowering leadership, psychological empowerment and employee Outcomes: Testing a multi-level mediating model. British Journal of Management , 26(1), 126–138.

32.

Fornell

, & Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research , 18(1), 39–50.

33.

Frank

F. D.

, Finnegan

R. P.

, & Taylor

C. R.

(2004). The race for talent: Retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning , 27(3), 12–25.

34.

Gerbing

D. W.

, & Anderson

J. C.

(1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research , 25(2), 186–192.

35.

Ghaniyoun

, Shakeri

, & Heidari

(2017). The association of psychological empowerment and job burnout in operational staff of Tehran emergency center. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine: Peer-Reviewed, Official Publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine , 21(9), 563.

36.

Gupta

(2017). Corporate social responsibility, employee–company identification, and organizational commitment: Mediation by employee engagement. Current Psychology , 36(1), 101–109.

37.

Gupta

, & Sharma

(2016). Exploring employee engagement—A way to better business performance. Global Business Review , 17(3_suppl), 45S–63S.

38.

Hackman

J. R.

, & Oldham

G. R.

(1980). Work redesign . Addison-Wesley.

39.

Hair

J. F.

, Gabriel

, & Patel

(2014). AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Brazilian Journal of Marketing , 13(2), 44–55.

40.

Hair

J. F.

, Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, & Anderson

R. E.

(2013). Multivariate data analysis (Pearson New International Edition). Pearson Higher Ed.

41.

Han

S. H.

, Seo

, Li

, & Yoon

S. W.

(2016). The mediating effect of organizational commitment and employee empowerment: How transformational leadership impacts employee knowledge sharing intention. Human Resource Development International , 19(2), 98–115.

42.

Hanaysha

, & Tahir

P. R.

(2016). Examining the effects of employee empowerment, teamwork, and employee training on job satisfaction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 219, 272–282.

43.

Harter

J. K.

, Schmidt

F. L.

, & Hayes

T. L.

(2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87(2), 268–279.

44.

, Murrmann

S. K.

, & Perdue

R. R.

(2010). An investigation of the relationships among employee empowerment, employee perceived service quality, and employee job satisfaction in a US hospitality organization. Journal of Foodservice Business Research , 113(1), 36–50.

45.

Hsieh

J. Y.

(2016). Spurious or true? An exploration of antecedents and simultaneity of job performance and job satisfaction across the sectors. Public Personnel Management , 45(1), 90–118.

46.

L. T.

, & Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 6(1), 1–55.

47.

Jha

(2010). Need for growth, achievement, power and affiliation: Determinants of psychological empowerment. Global Business Review , 11(3), 379–393.

48.

Jose

, & Mampilly

S. R.

(2014). Psychological empowerment as a predictor of employee engagement: An empirical attestation. Global Business Review , 15(1), 93–104.

49.

Jose

, & Mampilly

S. R.

(2015). Relationships among perceived supervisor support, psychological empowerment and employee engagement in Indian workplaces. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health , 30(3), 231–250.

50.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal , 33(4), 692–724.

51.

Kandampully

, & Duddy

(2001). Service system: A strategic approach to gain a competitive advantage in the hospitality and tourism industry. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration , 2(1), 27–47.

52.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2013). High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: The mediation of work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 32, 132–140.

53.

Khalili

, Sameti

, & Sheybani

(2016). A study on the effect of empowerment on customer orientation of employees. Global Business Review , 17(1), 38–50.

54.

Krishnan

V. R.

(2012). Transformational leadership and personal outcomes: Empowerment as mediator. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 33(6), 550–563.

55.

Kruja

, Ha

, Drishti

, & Oelfke

(2016). Empowerment in the hospitality industry in the United States. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management , 25(1), 25–48.

56.

Küçükergin

K. G.

, & Dedeoğlu

B. B.

(2014). The importance of employee hospitability and perceived price in the hotel industry. Anatolia , 25(2), 254–267.

57.

Kundu

S. C.

, Kumar

, & Gahlawat

(2019). Empowering leadership and job performance: Mediating role of psychological empowerment. Management Research Review , 42(5), 605–624.

58.

Laschinger

H. K.

, Finegan

J. E.

, Shamian

, & Wilk

(2004). longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , 25(4), 527–545.

59.

Lee

, Willis

, & Tian

A. W.

(2018). Empowering leadership: A meta–analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 39(3), 306–325.

60.

Lin

, Wu

, & Ling

(2017). Assessing the effectiveness of empowerment on service quality: A multi-level study of Chinese tourism firms. Tourism Management , 61, 411–425.

61.

Lindell

M. K.

, & Whitney

D. J.

(2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86(1), 114.

62.

, Lu

A. C.

, Gursoy

, & Neale

N. R.

(2016). Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: A comparison between supervisors and line-level employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 28(4), 737–761.

63.

Macey

W. H.

, Schneider

, Barbera

K. M.

, & Young

S. A.

(2011). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage . John Wiley & Sons.

64.

Mansoor

, & Hassan

(2016). Factors influencing employee engagement: A study on a telecommunication network provider in Maldives. International Journal of Accounting & Business Management , 4(1), 50–64.

65.

Maslach

, & Leiter

M. P.

(2016). Burnout. In Fink

(Ed.), Stress: Concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior (pp. 351–357). Academic Press.

66.

Memon

M. A.

, Salleh

, & Baharom

M. N.

(2016). The link between training satisfaction, work engagement and turnover intention. European Journal of Training and Development , 40(6), 407–429.

67.

Mishra

, & Mohanty

J. K.

(2016). The predictors of employee engagement: A study in a ferro alloys company of India. Global Business Review , 17(6), 1441–1453.

68.

Molina-Azorín

J. F.

, Tarí

J. J.

, Pereira-Moliner

, Lopez-Gamero

M. D.

, & Pertusa-Ortega

E. M.

(2015). The effects of quality and environmental management on competitive advantage: A mixed methods study in the hotel industry. Tourism Management , 50, 41–54.

69.

Morin

A. J.

, Meyer

J. P.

, Bélanger

É.

, Boudrias

J. S.

, Gagné

, & Parker

P. D.

(2016). Longitudinal associations between employees’ beliefs about the quality of the change management process, affective commitment to change and psychological empowerment. Human Relations , 69(3), 839–867.

70.

Moura

, Orgambídez-Ramos

, & de Jesus

S. N.

(2015). Psychological empowerment and work engagement as predictors of work satisfaction: A sample of hotel employees. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics , 3(2), 125–134.

71.

Muduli

, Verma

, & Datta

S. K.

(2016). High performance work system in India: Examining the role of employee engagement. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business , 17(2), 130–150.

72.

Noe

R. A.

, Hollenbeck

J. R.

, Gerhart

, & Wright

P. M.

(2017). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage . McGraw-Hill Education.

73.

Pelit

, Öztürk

, & Arslantürk

(2011). The effects of employee empowerment on employee job satisfaction: A study on hotels in Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 23(6), 784–802.

74.

Pizam

, & Ellis

(1999). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 11(7), 326–339.

75.

Pizam

, Shapoval

, & Ellis

(2013). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises: A revisit and update. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 28(1), 2–35.

76.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology , 63, 539–569.

77.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Lee

J. Y.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88(5), 879.

78.

Popli

, & Rizvi

I. A.

(2016). Drivers of employee engagement: The role of leadership style. Global Business Review , 17(4), 965–979.

79.

Rahimi

, & Kozak

(2017). Impact of customer relationship management on customer satisfaction: The case of a budget hotel chain. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing , 34(1), 40–51.

80.

Rich

B. L.

, Lepine

J. A.

, & Crawford

E. R.

(2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal , 53(3), 617–635.

81.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21(7), 600–619.

82.

Schaufeli

W. B.

, & Bakker

A. B.

(2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research , 10, 10–24.

83.

Schaufeli

W. B.

, Taris

T. W.

, & Van Rhenen

(2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being. Applied Psychology , 57(2), 173–203.

84.

Schermuly

C. C.

, Schermuly

R. A.

, & Meyer

(2011). Effects of vice-principals’ psychological empowerment on job satisfaction and burnout. International Journal of Educational Management , 25(3), 252–264.

85.

Shapira-Lishchinsky

, & Tsemach

(2014). Psychological empowerment as a mediator between teachers’ perceptions of authentic leadership and their withdrawal and citizenship behaviors. Educational Administration Quarterly , 50(4), 675–712.

86.

Sharma

, & Singh

V. K.

(2018). Psychological empowerment and employee engagement: Testing the mediating effects of constructive deviance in Indian IT Sector. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals (IJHCITP) , 9(4), 44–55.

87.

Shuck

, & Wollard

(2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review , 9(1), 89–110.

88.

Shuck

, Reio

T. G.

Jr , & Rocco

T. S.

(2011). Employee engagement: An examination of antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International , 14(4), 427–445.

89.

Spector

P. E.

(1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

90.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal , 38(5), 1442–1465.

91.

Stander

M. W.

, & Rothmann

(2010). Psychological empowerment, job insecurity and employee engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology , 36(1), 1–8.

92.

Sulea

, Virga

, Maricutoiu

L. P.

, Schaufeli

, Zaborila Dumitru

, & Sava

F. A.

(2012). Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra-role behaviors. Career Development International , 17(3), 188–207.

93.

Taris

T. W.

, Ybema

J. F.

, & van Beek

(2017). Burnout and engagement: Identical twins or just close relatives?. Burnout Research , 5, 3–11.

94.

Tenenhaus

(2008). Component-based structural equation modelling. Total Quality Management , 19(7–8), 871–886.

95.

Tetik

(2016). The effects of psychological empowerment on job satisfaction and job performance of tourist guides. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences , 6(2), 221–239.

96.

The World Bank Group. (2019, April 02). The World Bank in Maldives . https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/maldives/overview

97.

Thomas

K. W.

, & Velthouse

B. A.

(1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review , 15(4), 666–681.

98.

Ugwu

F. O.

, Onyishi

I. E.

, & Rodríguez-Sánchez

A. M.

(2014). Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: The role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review , 43(3), 377–400.

99.

Wang

, & Lee

P. D.

(2009). Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: An analysis of interactive effects. Group & Organization Management , 34(3), 271–296.

100.

Weiss

D. J.

, Dawis

R. V.

, England

G. W.

, & Lofquist

(1977). Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire (short form) . University of Minnesota, Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation.

101.

Williams

L. J.

, Hartman

, & Cavazotte

(2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods , 13(3), 477–514.

102.

Wong Humborstad

S. I.

, & Perry

(2011). Employee empowerment, job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An in-depth empirical investigation. Chinese Management Studies , 5(3), 325–344.

103.

Yalabik

Z. Y.

, Popaitoon

, Chowne

J. A.

, & Rayton

B. A.

(2013). Work engagement as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 24(14), 2799–2823.

104.

Yang

S. B.

, & Lee

K. H.

(2009). Linking empowerment and job enrichment to turnover intention: The influence of job satisfaction. International Review of Public Administration , 14(2), 13–24.

105.

Zhang

, & Bartol

K. M.

(2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal , 53(1), 107–128.