Impact of Structural Empowerment on Organizational Commitment: The Mediating Role of Women’s Psychological Empowerment

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to test the mediation role of women’s psychological empowerment on the relationship between structural empowerment and employee’s affective commitment. Organizational commitment leads to numerous positive consequences for an organization. So, it is vital to identify those factors which affect the commitment of employees. Previous research has demonstrated strong relationship between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment and commitment but not a single study examines all these in one study in Indian nursing context. In this cross-sectional study, the data were collected from 389 women nurses working in public and private hospitals operating in Punjab by adopting a multi-stage random sampling technique. Results of the study depicted that psychological empowerment mediates all the proposed relationship between different dimensions of structural empowerment and affective commitment. Indian nurses experienced high level of structural empowerment which further leads to high commitment. Results of the present study showed that in order to have a harmonious environment in the organization, it is important to create such an environment which foster psychological empowerment among employees as it has many attitudinal (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job strain and turnover intension) and behavioural (organizational citizenship behaviour, task performance and innovation) consequences.

Keywords

Structural Empowerment Psychological Empowerment Affective Commitment Structural Equation Modelling

Introduction

Consequently, there has emerged a general consensus about a clear theoretical conceptualization of women’s empowerment for international development research (Malhotra, Schuler, & Boender, 2002). However, in the years since there has emerged a general consensus about a clear theoretical conceptualization of women’s empowerment for international development research (Malhotra, Schuler, & Boender, 2002). The meaning of empowerment has been well explained by Kabeer (1999) which can be a good point of reference for evaluating women’s empowerment. The women’s empowerment can be defined as an unpreventably bound up with the state of deprive of power and denotes to the procedures by which the individuals, who have been denied the power to settle on decisions previously, develop such a power (Kabeer, 1999). The structural (workplace) empowerment is one of the significant dimensions of empowerment which can contribute towards empowering women employee’s positive relationship with their work and can become an important component of burnout and consequent turnover intensions Laschinger et al., 2004; Laschinger, Wong, & Greco, 2006; Nedd, 2006). Previous research has suggested that high structural empowerment results in reducing the stress level of the employees which further leads to healthier employees with high level of organizational commitment towards the goals of an organization (Laschinger, 2008). The shortage of workforce has been figured out as 4.3 million in healthcare settings, reported by the World Health Organization (2006), and anticipated to rise by 20 per cent in the next two decades particularly in nursing profession (McMullin & Cooke, 2004) due to dissatisfactory workplaces (Hayes et al., 2006). In view of the aforementioned fact that psychological empowerment is considered as a necessary element of workplace empowerment constituting employee rewards or intrinsic task motivation underlying the strengthened working conditions (Jha & Nair, 2008; Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk, 2009). It is indicated by Laschinger et al. (2001) that structural empowerment leads to psychological empowerment. In addition, an evidence of having a greater impact on work attitude and behaviour of employee by the model of Kanter (1977, 1993) on structural empowerment because of structural factors inherent in work environment has been shown. The study of Seibert et al. (2004) has witnessed the association between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment and also brings out the existence of mediation effect between the structural empowerment and job performance of women employee with the psychological empowerment. Furthermore, a causal relationship is found between structural empowerment at the group level and psychological empowerment and organizational commitment at the individual level while conducting multilevel study (Laschinger et al., 2009).

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

Structural Empowerment and Psychological Empowerment

Theoretical framework incorporates numerous studies which have been undertaken all around the world examining the effect of structural empowerment on psychological empowerment of the employees in healthcare setting, nurses, in particular taken into account for this study. The importance of structural empowerment and engagement of employees in the job for increasing job satisfaction has been studied in the area of general management, but lesser attention has been paid in nursing (Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001a, 2001b; Laschinger et al., 2006; Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Spreitzer, 1995a). Armstrong and Laschinger (2006) describe that patient’s safety has become a major concern in front of healthcare environment experiencing strained resources in the present time. They also asserted nursing is as important as patient safety because lack of favourable working conditions and poor management practices may endanger patient’s safety. Kanter (1977, 1993) advocated about the six structures of organizational empowerment in the work environment that motivate the employees to achieve their work in a purposeful manner. Access to these structural empowerments evolves from both the formal and the informal systems of the organization. Formal power is that part of the job position which provides recognition through discretionary actions that are relevant to vital organizational goals. Informal power comes up from the alliances and relationships that employees develop within and outside the organization, with their subordinates, leader, peers and sponsors, which helps them in accomplishing the organizational goals. Furthermore, these two types of structural empowerment help in accessing the resources, support and information involved in performing the job in an effective manner and it also provides an opportunity to develop and learn in the job. Access to resources means supply the essential equipment, material and human resources on time to achieve the organizational goals in an efficient and effective manner, whereas access to required amount of expertise, data and technical knowledge to work effectively in an organization consists of the fourth structural empowerment known as ‘information structure’. The fifth structural empowerment ‘support’ denotes to have the required help, feedback and advice to solve a problem from subordinates, peers or supervisor. Finally, opportunity refers to an organizational situation in which employees get an opportunity to develop and learn new professional skills which are essential for performing a job. The access to these structural empowerments helps in improving the overall effectiveness of the organizational functioning and positive employee attitudes (Kanter, 1977, 1993; Sharma & Kaur, 2008). In the absence of these structures, it could result in negative outcomes like conflicts in the work role and could be a source of stress for nurse administrators discovered by Ardent and Laeger (1970) followed by Greene (2005), Apker (2002) and Oermann and Moffatt-Wolf (1997), and high levels of burnout and high levels of illness-related absenteeism (Cho, Laschinger, & Wong, 2006; Greco, Laschinger, & Wong, 2006; Laschinger, Almost, Purdy, & Kim, 2004a). It is apparent from the study of Upenieks (2003) that structural empowerment has positive outcomes in delivering leadership role by the managers and nurse executives. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) also added that structural empowerment brings the feeling of effectiveness in nurses to achieve the work effectively.

An important theoretical framework for structural empowerment is Kanter’s ‘Theory of Structural Power in Organisations’ (1993), frequently tested in nursing populations and found to be useful for nursing management (e.g., Laschinger et al., 2004; Laschinger et al., 2001; Laschinger, Sabiston, & Kutszcher, 1997; Manojlovich, 2005). Most of the earlier studies have focused only on the individual, ignoring the relationship between structural and psychological approach of empowerment. However, Laschinger et al. (2001) revealed that psychological empowerment can be considered as an outcome of structural empowerment. In order to the further validate these constructs, Dewettinck and van Ameijde (2011) and Wagner et al. (2010) checked the relationship between these two and found that there exists a strong direct link between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment. So, on the basis of the aforementioned discussion, we derived following hypotheses.

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ own creation.

H1: There is a significant positive relationship between opportunity and psychological empowerment.

H2: There is a significant positive relationship between information and psychological empowerment.

H3: There is a significant positive relationship between support and psychological empowerment.

H4: There is a significant positive relationship between resources and psychological empowerment.

H5: There is a significant positive relationship between formal power and psychological empowerment.

H6: There is a significant positive relationship between informal power and psychological empowerment.

Psychological Empowerment and Affective Commitment

Organizational commitment is another vital behavioural consequence of psychological empowerment (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011). It has been evidenced that there is a strong relationship between affective commitment and internal motivations of the employees (Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004). The ‘meaning’ construct of psychological empowerment is very much closely associated with affective commitment of the employees as ‘meaning’ is fit measure that assesses the association between employees values and needs and work load demand (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Spreitzer, 1995a). Further- more, employee’s organizational commitment increases with higher levels of employee’s feelings of impact, competence and autonomy as this will strengthen the employee’s power to convey their interests and values with the help of their work (Seibert et al., 2011). Previous work has established that higher levels of empowerment lead to higher levels of loyalty among employees (Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000). Empowered employees will have higher levels of organizational commitment and energy to perform and will be able to influence their job and organizations in a more meaningful way (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Kanter, 1983; Wiley, 1999).

H7: Psychological empowerment is positively associated with affective commitment.

Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment

On the basis of aforementioned hypotheses, we proposed that psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between structural empowerment (opportunity, information, support, resources, formal power, informal power and distributive justice) and affective commitment. The psychological empowerment approach postulated that the amount of empowerment that one feels is purely perceptual in nature. In line of this, Liden et al. (2000) define psychological empowerment as ‘the extent to which individual feels that he or she possesses work-related competence and control over work decisions and derives meaning and a sense of impact from the job’. Therefore, it is expected that empowered employees will be more committed towards their organization (Beaulieu, 1994; Dubuc, 1995; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Liden et al., 2000; Liu, Chiu, & Fellows, 2007; McDermott, Laschinger, & Shamian, 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Vacharakiat, 2008; Wilson & Laschinger, 1994). Avolio, Zhu, Koh and Bhatia (2004) found the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between organizational commitment and transformational leadership style.

H8: Psychological empowerment mediated the relationship between structural empowerment (opportunity, information, support, resources, formal power, informal power and distributive justice) and affective commitment.

Research Design

Sample of the Study

Multistage random sampling was employed to collect the data from women nurses working in private and public hospitals of Punjab. A total of 536 questionnaires were distributed out of which 412 questionnaires were returned by the respondents. Furthermore, out of these, 23 questionnaires were not included in the final analysis due to the reason of missing data or unengaged respondent or both. This filter finally results in 389 useable questionnaires which were finally used for data analysis. Out of this, 224 respondents were from public sector and 165 were from private sector hospitals.

Measuring Instruments

In order to measure the constructs in the proposed model, different standardized scales were selected based on the review of literature. First, in order to measure the perceptions of employees regarding ‘structural empowerment’, Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire II provided by Laschinger et al. (2001) was used. The scale consists of 18 items with 6 constructs having 3 items in each construct. The construct like opportunity consists of three items (e.g., ‘challenging work’), information (e.g., ‘information about current state of organization’), support (e.g., ‘things you could improve’), resources (e.g., ‘time available for paperwork’), formal power (e.g., ‘visibility of work related activities’) and informal power (e.g., ‘collaborate with other professionals’). Next, psychological empowerment of the nurses was measured with the scale developed by Spreitzer (1995b). It consists of 12 statements with 4 dimensions, namely, competence (e.g., ‘I am confident about my ability to do my job’), impact (e.g., ‘I have a great deal of control over what happens in my organization’), self-determination (e.g., ‘I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work’) and meaning (e.g., ‘My job activities are personally meaningful to me’). Finally, the affective commitment was measured with the scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). The scale consists of eight statements out of which four were reverse items (e.g., ‘I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization’). All the statements were measured on a five-point Likert scale, anchoring at 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Data Analysis

In order to analyse the proposed structural model, the researcher used structural equation modelling (SEM) in AMOS 18.0 version. The structural model assigns the causal relationships among one endogenous variable (psychological empowerment), one consequence variable (affective commitment) and six control variables (age, marital status, educational qualification, income, area of belonging and experience). Furthermore, in order to test the mediating effect of psychological empowerment on the proposed relationships, the researcher used bootstrapping technique with bias-corrected confidence interval at 95 per cent confidence level.

In this section, two subgroups (public sector and private sector) were created in order to test the moderating effect of these subgroups on the hypothesized relationships in the proposed model. In order to study the moderating effect of these two subgroups on hypothesized relationships, Z-test was used (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006).

Results and Findings

In this section, we tested the measurement model and structural model with the help of AMOS 18 version.

Correlation Analysis

A descriptive and correlation analysis was performed on the zero-order constructs of independent and dependent variables and second-order constructs (mediating variable). Results of the correlation analysis revealed that psychological empowerment is significantly positively associated with affective commitment, opportunity, informal power and formal power.

Results also depicted that affective commitment is found to be negatively correlated with both (r = −0.141, p < 0.001) resources and support (r = −0.159, p < 0.001), whereas affective commitment is positively correlated with opportunity, formal and informal power. The opportunity dimension of structural empowerment is positively correlated with informal power, respect and information. Informal power is positively associated with both respect (r = 0.177, p < 0.001) and information (r = 0.171, p < 0.001), whereas it is negatively correlated with formal power (r = −0.103, p < 0.001). Results revealed that formal power is negatively correlated with respect, information and support, whereas respect and information are positively associated with each other (r = 0.643, p < 0.001). Finally, results of the correlation analysis demonstrated a positive correlation between information and support (r = 0.161, p < 0.001).

Table 1.

Inter-construct Correlation Matrix

Variable	Means	SD	PE	AFF	OPP	INF	FOR	RES	IFR	SUP
PE	3.51	0.96	1
AFF	3.11	0.99	0.714^**	1
OPP	3.02	0.89	0.212^**	0.162^**	1
INF	2.73	1.00	0.263^**	0.138^**	0.133^**	1
FOR	3.13	1.36	0.623^**	0.537^**	0.023	−0.103^*	1
RES	3.80	0.99	−0.012	−0.141^**	0.176^**	0.177^**	−0.079	1
IFR	3.05	0.88	0.044	−0.075	0.195^**	0.171^**	−0.150^**	0.643^**	1
SUP	3.56	0.91	−0.033	−0.159^**	0.073	0.065	−0.231^**	0.108^*	0.161^**	1

Source: Authors’ computation.

Notes: PE: psychological empowerment; AFF: affective commitment; OPP: opportunity; INF: informal power; FOR: formal power; RES: resources; IFR: information; SUP: support.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) and * correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Measurement Model

The proposed measurement model was tested for two types of invariance test, metric and configural invariance. Results of the configural invariance test depicted an acceptable model fit with χ2 = 4,091.919, p < 0.001, D.F. = 3,374, CMIN/D.F. = 1.213 ≤ 3 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010), CFI = 0.960 ≥ 0.90 (Hair et al., 2010, RMR = 0.086 ≤ 0.10 (Wu, 2009), RMSEA = 0.023 ≤ 0.08 (Steiger, 1990), TLI = 0.957 ≥ 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and PGFI = 0.682 ≥ 0.50 (Wu, 2009). Furthermore, the presence of configural invariance in the model was supported as across the subgroups, all the factor loadings were statistically significant.

In the present study, the researcher tested the metric invariance by comparing the values of chi-square and degree of freedom of two models Van de, Lugtig and Hox (2012). In the first model, all the factor loadings were constrained to be equal across two subgroups, and in the second model, all the factor loadings were unconstrained. The results of metric invariance test revealed insignificant change in fit measure (∆χ2 = 76.2, ∆D.F. = 62, p > 0.05). Furthermore, all the values of model fit were above the specified criterion with χ2 = 4,154.601, D.F = 3,434, p < 0.01, CMIN/D.F. = 1.210 ≤ 3 (Hair et al., 2010), CFI = 0.960 ≥ 0.90 (Hair et al., 2010), TLI = 0.957 ≥ 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), RMR = 0.138 ≤ 0.10 (Wu, 2009), PGFI = 0.691 ≥ 0.50 (Wu, 2009) and RMSEA= 0.023 ≤ 0.08 (Steiger, 1990). So, the results of configural invariance and metric invariance reveal that the proposed model is robust in nature.

Structural Model

Results of the model fit of the structural model also depicted acceptable values with χ2 = 100.362, D.F. = 41, p > 0.001, CMIN/D.F = 2.448 ≤ 3 (Hair et al., 2010), GFI = 0.967 ≥ 0.80 (Miles & Shevlin, 1998), CFI = 0.973 ≥ 0.90 (Hair et al., 2010), RMR = 0.51 ≤ 0.10 (Wu, 2009), AGFI = 0.904 ≥ 0.80 (Byrne, 2001) and RMSEA = 0.061 ≤ 0.08 (Steiger, 1990). On the basis of modification indices, different control variables were correlated with each other. Results of the structural models show a very minimal effect of control variable, such that only marital status was significantly positively associated with the affective commitment of the employees and no other control variable was significantly associated with any of the variable under considerations.

Results of Table 2 render the support for H1 as the employee’s feeling of opportunity within the organization increases, there is increase in the feeling of psychological empowerment among the employees. Results also depicted the support for H2 that as the employees are updated with the current state of the organization, there is a positive psychological empowerment among the employees of the organization. Structural model also confirms the H3, which states that as the employee’s feeling of organizational support increases, there is a positive feeling of psychological empowerment among the employees. An interesting finding that was evolved in this analysis was that in H4, the researcher hypothesized that as the professional respect among the employee’s increases, there is a positive impact on the psychological empowerment of the employees, but in the present study, we found a significant negative relationship between respect and psychological empowerment. Furthermore, the results of structural model confirm the H5, which states that as the formal power of the employees increases, there is an increase in the positive psychological empowerment among the employees. Next, the results also confirm the H6 that as the feeling of employees regarding informal power within the organization increases, there is a positive increase in the psychological empowerment of the employees. Finally, results of the model confirm the H7, which states that psychological empowerment has a significant positive association with affective commitment of the employees.

Table 2.

Results of the Structural Model

Hypotheses	Relationship	Standardized Estimate	CR	Hypothesis Accepted
H1	OPP " PE (+)	0.131	3.730***	Yes
H2	INM " PE (+)	0.129	2.849***	Yes
H3	SUP " PE (+)	0.092	2.599***	Yes
H4	RSC " PE (+)	−0.128	−2.866***	No
H5	FOR " PE (+)	0.686	19.304***	Yes
H6	INF " PE (+)	0.288→	8.204***	Yes
H7	PE " AFF (+)	0.611	12.031***	Yes

Source: Authors’ own computation.

Notes: *** p-value < 0.01; ** p-value < 0.05 and * p-value < 0.10.

Mediation Results

Results of the bootstrapped mediation (Table 3) revealed that psychological empowerment fully mediates the relationship between opportunity and affective commitment of the employees; next, psychological empowerment fully mediates the relationship between information and affective commitment; furthermore, psychological empowerment fully mediates the relationship between formal power and affective commitment, and finally, psychological empowerment fully mediates the relationship between informal power and affective commitment. Apart from this, results of the mediation analysis revealed that the psychological empowerment partially mediates the relationship between support and affective commitment, and finally, psychological empowerment partially mediates the relationship between resources and affective commitment.

Table 3.

Showing the Results of the Bootstrapped Mediation

Mediating Relationship	Estimate*	p-value	Estimate**	p-value	Type of Mediation
Opportunity towards affective commitment through psychological empowerment	0.080	0.001	0.059	0.143	Full
Information towards affective commitment through psychological empowerment	0.079	0.002	0.012	0.786	Full
Support towards affective commitment through psychological empowerment	0.056	0.012	−0.094	0.007	Partial
Resources towards affective commitment through psychological empowerment	−0.078	0.004	−0.131	0.002	Partial
Formal power towards affective commitment through psychological empowerment	0.419	0.001	0.101	0.069	Full
Informal power towards affective commitment through psychological empowerment	0.176	0.001	0.000	0.995	Full

Source: Authors’ own computation.

Notes: *Standardized indirect effects and **standardized direct effects.

Results of the Multi-group Moderation Analysis

Results of Table 4 manifested that in majority of hypothesized relationships, public hospitals show higher standardized estimates than private hospitals. An interesting finding of the moderation analysis is that in case of relationship between formal power and psychological empowerment, private sector overpowers the public sector. It means that formal power has greater effect on the psychological empowerment of women who are working in private hospitals rather than public hospitals. A similar type of results was observed in case of relationship between professional respect and psychological empowerment. In this again private sector has more intense relationship as compared to public sector. Apart from this, there is significant difference in H2, such that organizational information has greater effect on the women’s psychological empowerment of public sector as compared to private hospitals. However, there was no moderation for H1, H3 and H7. Finally, there is a wide difference in the values of estimates between public and private hospitals in respect to the relationship between informal power and psychological empowerment. The influence of informal power is more observed in public hospitals as compared to private hospitals.

Table 4.

Showing Multi-group Moderation

Hypothesis	Relationship	Standardized Estimate				Z-score	Moderation
		Public	p-value	Private	p-value
H1	OPP→ PE (+)	0.143	0.001	0.086	0.089	−0.840	No
H2	INM→ PE (+)	0.238	0.000	−0.011	0.858	−2.839***	Yes
H3	SUP→ PE (+)	0.045	0.317	0.070	0.161	0.366	No
H4	RSC→ PE (+)	−0.185	0.000	−0.034	0.551	1.933*	Yes
H5	FOR→ PE (+)	0.368	0.000	0.593	0.000	5.122***	Yes
H6	INF→ PE (+)	0.293	0.000	0.092	0.043	−3.353***	Yes
H7	PE→ AFF (+)	0.575	0.000	0.453	0.000	−1.071	No

Source: Authors’ own computation.

Notes: *** p-value < 0.01; ** p-value < 0.05 and * p-value < 0.10.

Discussion

The present study investigates the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between structural empowerment and affective commitment of the nurses. The results of the study depicted a strong linkage between the dimensions of structural empowerment and psychological empowerment. Previous research also supported these results (DeCicco, Laschinger, & Kerr, 2006; Kluska, Laschinger, & Kerr, 2004; Laschinger et al., 2001; Laschinger et al., 2009). Laschinger et al. (2009) in a multilevel study demonstrated that structural empowerment at group level was strongly associated with psychological empowerment at individual level. Furthermore, Laschinger, Almost and Tuer (2003) demonstrated a strong linkage between empowering workplace environment and professional nursing practice features which further leads to their turnover intention and job satisfaction. Laschinger and Finegan (2005) also explored the relationship between workplace empowerment and professional nurse practice environment and how these further affect their physical and mental health. They also recognized the prerequisite for multilevel research on workplace empowerment. The strong linkage between all the six dimensions of structural empowerment and psychological empowerment in the present study confirms the Kanter’s claim about the importance of structural factors at workplace and how these factors help the empowered employees in achieving their work goals. Kanter’s theory suggested that rather than altering the nurses’ socialization effects or their individual characteristics, leaders should change the organizational structure as individual’s attitudes and behaviours are controlled by organizational environment. Results of the previous work depicted that high levels of structural empowerment lead to a high level of psychological empowerment among the employees which further leads to organizational commitment (DeCicco et al., 2006; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Kanter, 1983; Seibert et al., 2011; Wiley, 1999), reduced levels of burnout (Faulkner & Laschinger, 2008; Sarmiento, Laschinger, & Iwasiw, 2004), higher job satisfaction and organizational productivity (Laschinger, Purdy, & Almost, 2007; Laschinger et al., 2009; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002), employee engagement (Jose & Mampilly, 2014), lower level of turnover intension (Bhatnagar, 2012), high levels of organizational citizenship behaviour (Bhatnagar & Sandhu, 2005; Bhatnagar & Sharma, 2004; Jha, 2014), lower turnover intension (Gill, Mathur, Sharma, & Bhutani, 2011; Venkatesh & Kulkarni, 2002) and lower levels of job strain (Faulkner & Laschinger, 2008; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; Sarmiento et al., 2004). This is the reason that nursing practitioners need to pay attention on professional nurse practice environment and workplace empowerment as these affect the nurses’ physical and mental health (Laschinger & Finegan, 2005). Results of the study also depicted a strong positive relationship between psychological empowerment and affective commitment of the nurses. A prior research has also demonstrated the positive association between organizational commitment and psychological empowerment (Bhatnagar, 2005, 2007; DeCicco et al., 2006; Jha, 2011; Laschinger et al., 2009; Seibert et al., 2011; Vacharakiat, 2008). Results of the mediation analysis revealed that psychological empowerment fully mediates the relationship between four dimensions of structural empowerment (opportunity, information, formal power and informal power) and affective commitment, whereas there was partial type of mediation by psychological empowerment on the relationship between two dimensions of structural empowerment (resources and support) and affective commitment. From these results, we can infer that nurses should be provided with higher levels of structural empowerment as it has both behavioural and attitudinal consequences which are of utmost importance for the growth of any organization. Carless (2004) established that empowered human capital leads to an empowered organization. Agarwal and Ferratt (1999) found information sharing, procedural and distributive justice, empowerment, work–life policies, competence development and recognition as the critical HR practices in the software industry in India.

Implications for Management Practice

The prime implication of the present study is that psychological and structural empowerment emerged out to be a vital antecedent of employee’s commitment towards organization which ultimately leads to the extra-role behaviour by the employees within and outside the organization. These results pinpoint that in order to have a harmonious environment in the organization, it is very much important to create such an environment which foster the psychological empowerment of the employees as psychological empowerment has many attitudinal (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job strain and turnover intension) and behavioural (organizational citizenship behaviour, task performance and innovation) consequences (Conger, 1989; Seibert et al., 2011). In order to encourage employees to indulge in positive behavioural and attitudinal consequences, it is essential to promote a congenial environment for the employees that motivate them to indulge in these positive behaviours. Kanter (1977) had given some guidelines for making the work environment effective in which the manager has to focus more on coordination rather than on control.

Limitations of the Study

There are some limitations related to this study which needs to be taken care. First, the present study uses self-reporting method to collect the data from the respondents, which causes the problem of common method variance. However, Spector (1987) stated that common method variance is of less concern in those studies which make use of a well-designed multi-statement validated questionnaire. In a cross-sectional study, we cannot have a causal relationship among the tested variables (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 2013), which means that we cannot develop a causal relationship among structural empowerment, psychological empowerment and affective commitment in the present study. If predictions are made on the basis of a priori theory, then the ill effects of this limitation can be offset to some extent as it enables the researcher to make the generalization on the theory but not on the population (Serlin, 1987). Another limitation of the study was that this study did not include all factors affecting the affective commitment and perceptions of psychological empowerment of the nurses. Other factors which are left in this study can be taken into considerationin future studies.

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.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to University Grants Commission, a statutory body of Government of India established to promote higher education, for providing fellowship to one of the author (Arun Aggarwal) for undertaking the research work.

References

Agarwal

& Ferratt

T. W.

(1999). Coping with labor scarcity in information technology: Strategies and practices for effective recruitment and retention. Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex.

Allen

N. J.

& Meyer

J. P.

(1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 63(1), 1–18.

Apker

(2002). Front-line nurse manager roles, job stressors and coping strategies in a managed care hospital. Communication Quarterly, 50(2), 75–81.

Ardent

& Laeger

(1970). Role strain in a diversified role set: The director of nursing. Part II, sources of role stress. Nursing Research, 19(6), 495–501.

Armstrong

K. J.

& Laschinger

(2006). Structural empowerment, magnet hospital characteristics and patient safety culture: Making the link. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 21(2), 124–132.

Avolio

B. J.

Zhu

Koh

& Bhatia

(2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951–968.

Beaulieu

(1994). Power and opportunity in rehabilitation nursing settings (Unpublished master’s thesis). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.

Bhatnagar

(2005). The power of psychological empowerment as an antecedent to organizational commitment in Indian managers. Human Resource Development International 8(4), 419–433.

Bhatnagar

(2007). Predictors of organizational commitment in India: Strategic HR roles, organizational learning capability and psychological empowerment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1782–1811.

10.

Bhatnagar

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

11.

Bhatnagar

& Sandhu

(2005). Psychological empowerment and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) in ‘IT’ managers: A talent retention tool. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(4), 449–469.

12.

Bhatnagar

& Sharma

(2004). The level of psychological empowerment in Indian managers. Global Business Review, 5(2), 217–227.

13.

Byrne

B. M.

(2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

14.

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.

15.

Cho

Laschinger

H. K. S.

& Wong

(2006). Workplace empowerment, work engagement and organisational commitment of new graduate nurse. Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 19(3), 43–60.

16.

Conger

J. A.

(1989). Leadership: The art of empowering others. The Academy of Management Executive, 3(1), 17–24.

17.

DeCicco

Laschinger

H. K. S.

& Kerr

(2006). Perceptions of empowerment and respect. Effect on nurses’ organizational commitment in nursing homes. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 32(5), 49–56.

18.

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.

19.

Dubuc

(1995). Job empowerment and commitment in military nursing: An extension study (Unpublished master’s research project). London, Canada: University of Western Ontario.

20.

Eisenberger

Fasolo

& Davis-LaMastro

(1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59.

21.

Faulkner

& Laschinger

(2008). The effects of structural and psychological empowerment on perceived respect in acute care nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(2), 214–221.

22.

Gill

Mathur

Sharma

S. P.

& Bhutani

(2011). The effects of empowerment and transformational leadership on employee intentions to quit: A study of restaurant workers in India. International Journal of Management, 28(1), 217–229.

23.

Greco

Laschinger

H. K. S.

& Wong

C. A.

(2006). Leader empowering behaviours, staff nurse empowerment and work engagement/burnout. Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 19(4), 42–57.

24.

Greene

(2005). What nurses want: Different generations, different expectations. Hospitals and Health Networks, 79(3), 34–42.

25.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

& Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

26.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

& Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

27.

Hayes

L. J.

Orchard

C. A.

Hall

L. M.

Nincic

O’Brien-Pallas

& Andrews

(2006). Career intentions of nursing students and new nurse graduates: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 3(1), 1–15.

28.

& Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equations Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

29.

Jha

(2011). Influence of psychological empowerment on affective, normative and continuance commitment: A study in the Indian IT industry. Journal of Indian Business Research, 3(4), 263–282.

30.

Jha

(2014). Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment: Determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 3(1), 18–35.

31.

Jha

S. S.

& Nair

S. K.

(2008). Influence of locus of control, job characteristics and superior–subordinate relationship on psychological empowerment: A study in five star hotels. Journal of Management Research, 8(3), 147–161.

32.

Jose

& Mampilly

S. R.

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

33.

Kabeer

(1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and change, 30(3), 435–464.

34.

Kanter

R. M.

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

35.

Kanter

R. M.

(1983). The change masters. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

36.

Kanter

R. M.

(1993). Men and women of the corporation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

37.

Kluska

K. M.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

& Kerr

M. S.

(2004). Staff nurse empowerment and effort–reward imbalance. Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 17(1), 112–128.

38.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

& Johnson

E. C.

(2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.

39.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

(2008). Effect of empowerment on professional practice environments, work satisfaction, and patient care quality: Further testing the nursing work life model. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 23(4), 322–330.

40.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Almost

& Tuer

H. D.

(2003). Workplace empowerment and magnet hospital characteristics: Making the link. Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(7–8), 410–422.

41.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Almost

Purdy

& Kim

(2004a). Predictors of nurse managers health in Canadian restructured healthcare settings. Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 17(4), 88–105.

42.

Laschinger

H. K.S.

Almost

Purdy

& Kim

(2004) Predictors of nurse managers health in Canadian restructured healthcare settings. Nursing Leadership, 17(4), 75–83.

43.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

& Finegan

(2005). Empowering nurses for work engagement and health in hospital settings. Journal of Nursing Administration, 35(10), 439–449.

44.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Finegan

& Shamian

(2001a). Promoting nurses health: Effect of empowerment on job strain and work satisfaction. Nursing Economics, 19(2), 42–52.

45.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Finegan

& Shamian

(2001b). The impact of workplace empowerment and organisational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organisational commitment. Healthcare Care Management Review, 26(3), 7–23.

46.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Finegan

Shamian

& Wilk

(2001). Impact of structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: Expanding Kanter’s model. Journal of Nursing Administration, 31(5), 260–272.

47.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

(2004). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 527–554.

48.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Finegan

& Wilk

(2009). Context matters: The impact of unit leadership and empowerment on nurses’ organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Administration, 39(5), 228–235.

49.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Purdy

& Almost

(2007). The impact of leader–member exchange quality, empowerment, and core self-evaluation on nurse manager’s job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(3), 221–229.

50.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Sabiston

J. A.

& Kutszcher

(1997). Empowerment and staff nurse decision involvement in nursing work environments: Testing Kanter’s theory of structural power in organisations. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(4), 341–352.

51.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Wong

& Greco

(2006). The impact of staff nurse empowerment on person–job fit and work engagement/burnout. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 358–367.

52.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

& 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), 407–416.

53.

Liu

M. M. A.

Chiu

W. M.

& Fellows

(2007). Enhancing commitment through work empowerment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(6), 568–580.

54.

Malhotra

& Schuler

S. R.

(2005). Women’s empowerment as a variable in international development. In Narayan

(Ed.), Measuring empowerment: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 71–88). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

55.

Manojlovich

(2005). Predictors of professional nursing practice behaviours in hospital settings. Nursing Research, 54(1), 41–47.

56.

Manojlovich

& Laschinger

H. K. S.

(2002). The relationship of empowerment and selected personality characteristics to nursing job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Administration, 32(11), 586–595.

57.

Mathieu

J. E.

Gilson

L. L.

& Ruddy

T. M.

(2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108.

58.

McDermott

Laschinger

H. K. S.

& Shamian

(1996). Work empowerment and organizational commitment. Nursing Management, 27(5), 44–48.

59.

McMullin

J. A.

& Cooke

(2004). Labor force ageing and skill shortages in Canada and Ontario. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc.

60.

Meyer

J. P.

& Allen

N. J.

(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.

61.

Meyer

J. P.

Becker

T. E.

& Vandenberghe

(2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007.

62.

Miles

& Shevlin

(1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 85–90.

63.

Nedd

(2006). Perceptions of empowerment and intent to stay. Nursing Economics, 24(1), 13–18.

64.

Oermann

& Moffatt-Wolf

(1997). New graduates perceptions of clinical practice. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 28(1), 20–25.

65.

Pedhazur

E. J.

& Schmelkin

L. P.

(2013). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Washington, DC: Psychology Press.

66.

Sarmiento

T. P.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

& Iwasiw

(2004). Nurse educators’ workplace empowerment, burnout, and job satisfaction: Testing Kanter’s theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46(2), 134–143.

67.

Schaufeli

W. B.

& Bakker

A. B.

(2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 25(3), 293–315.

68.

Seibert

S. E.

Silver

S. R.

& Randolph

W. A.

(2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332–349

69.

Seibert

S. E.

Wang

& Courtright

(2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.

70.

Serlin

R. C.

(1987). Hypothesis testing, theory building, and the philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 365–371.

71.

Sharma

M. K.

& Kaur

(2008). Employee empowerment: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(2), 7–12.

72.

Spector

P. E.

(1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 438–443.

73.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995a). An empirical examination of a comprehensive model of psychological empowerment in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 601–629.

74.

Spreitzer

G. M.

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

75.

Steiger

J. H.

(1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.

76.

Upenieks

V. V.

(2003). Nurse perceptions of job satisfaction and empowerment: Is there a difference between nurses employed at magnet versus non-magnet hospitals? Nursing Management, 34(2), 43–44.

77.

Vacharakiat

(2008). The relationships of empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among Filipino and American registered nurses working in the USA (Unpublished doctoral). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

78.

Van de Schoot

Lugtig

& Hox

(2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492.

79.

Venkatesh

& Kulkarni

(2002). Employee motivation and empowerment in hospitality, rhetoric or reality: Some observations from India. Journal of Service Research, 2(1), 31–53.

80.

Wiley

D. M.

(1999). Impact of locus of control and empowerment on organizational commitment (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San Diego Campus).

81.

Wagner

J. I.

Cummings

Smith

D. L.

Olson

Anderson

& Warren

(2010). The relationship between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment for nurses: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(4), 448–462.

82.

Wiley

D. M.

(1999). Impact of locus of control and empowerment on organizational commitment (Doctoral dissertation). United States International University.

83.

Wilson

& Laschinger

(1994). Staff nurse perception of job empowerment and organizational commitment: A test of Kanter’s theory of structural power in organizations. Journal of Nursing Administration, 24(4s), 39–45.

84.

World Health Organization (2006). World health report 2006: Working together for health. Geneva: WHO. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/whr/2006/en

85.

M. L.

(2009). Structural equation modeling: Amos operation and application. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book Inc.