Motivational Effects of Empowerment on Employees’ Organizational Commitment

Abstract

Although studies have suggested that employee empowerment has a motivational effect on organizational commitment, the conceptual explanation and the factors that influence this relationship remain unexplored. To fill that gap, this study examines the mediating role of management trustworthiness in the relationship between empowerment and commitment, based on a survey of 330 employees in twenty-nine upscale hotel restaurants in Seoul, South Korea. A test of the model in this study finds that management trustworthiness fully mediates the relationship between influence, a dimension of empowerment, and organizational commitment while it partially mediates between attitude, another dimension of empowerment, and commitment. One implication is that managers can empower employees as a demonstration of the value the firm places its workers. Empowerment can support the notion of management trustworthiness, which is an essential element of organizational commitment.

Keywords

psychological empowerment organizational commitment management trustworthiness mediation hotel restaurant employees

Employee empowerment has been widely acknowledged by both scholars and practitioners as an HR strategy that enhances flexibility and promptness by pushing the decision making down to the service level (Kanter 1977). Empowering service workers is particularly encouraged in the hospitality industry where prompt action is often required for frontline employees to deliver desired customer services. Ottenbacher and Gnoth (2005) argue that employee empowerment is one of the key factors in leading innovation success for hospitality companies. In addition to the structural effectiveness of empowerment, some have argued that empowering employees has motivational effects on individual outcomes such as job satisfaction (Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe 2000; Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason 1997) and organizational commitment (Bhatnagar 2007; Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe 2000).

While several studies have examined the direct link between empowerment and organizational commitment, few have looked at workplace variables that might influence this relationship. To investigate the mediating effect of management trustworthiness on the empowerment–commitment relationship, we tested whether empowerment would enhance hotel restaurant employees’ commitment to the firm if empowered employees consider their management to be trustworthy. We selected a convenience sample of hotel restaurant employees for this study because they are high-customer-contact service providers who may benefit from empowerment during the service interaction with customers. We believe that an employee’s trust in management can be an essential prerequisite for maintaining employee commitment to the organization in the hotel industry.

The following sections review the literature regarding organizational commitment, psychological empowerment, and management trustworthiness and propound this study’s research hypotheses. The research protocol and interpretations of the results are followed by research implications as well as suggestions for hospitality practitioners.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment has been defined as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Steers 1977, p. 46). Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) identified two approaches to the organizational commitment construct. The first focuses on employees’ attitudinal attachment to the organization, while the second concerns their behavioral intention to continue employment with the organization. The attitudinal construct refers to affective organizational commitment, while the behavioral intention construct may be referred to as either continuance commitment or normative commitment.

We focus here on affective commitment, which we also refer to as organizational commitment, and which originates from an employee’s attitudinal response to his or her organization. This form of commitment occurs when organizational values and goals are compatible with those of an employee (Hall, Schneider, and Nygren 1970). Cichy, Cha, and Kim (2009) found that affective commitment among private club managers promotes extra-role behaviors, namely contextual performance, while both continuance and normative commitment rarely influence contextual performance. Therefore, companies are more likely to be interested in fostering affective commitment rather than a more obligatory form of commitment such as continuance and normative commitment.

Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) further differentiated organizational commitment from job satisfaction by specifying that organizational commitment is concerned with attachment to the employing organization while job satisfaction focuses on feelings to the specific job environment. Therefore, organizational commitment seems to be less influenced by day-to-day events and is more slowly changed in the workplace than job satisfaction (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979).

Affectively committed employees are thought to have a strong sense of belonging and identification that increases their involvement in the organization’s activities, their willingness to seek the organization’s values, and their desire to stay with the organization (Karatepe and Magaji 2008; Meyer and Allen 1991). It has been a main theme of organizational commitment literature to identify what promotes employee commitment. Most antecedents of organizational commitment are related to organizational interventions to motivate employees, which includes newcomer socialization (Yang 2008), organizational support (Kim, Leong, and Lee 2006), work group cohesiveness (Heffner and Rentsch 2001), and supervisory support, training, empowerment, and rewards (Karatepe, Yavas, and Babakus 2007).

Empowerment

Although definitions may vary, scholars agree that empowerment gives employees discretion or latitude over task-related activities (Bowen and Lawler 1992; Conger and Kanungo 1988; Schlessinger and Heskett 1991). According to Sparrowe (1994), there are two variations of the empowerment perspective: a structural perspective focusing on managerial action and a motivational perspective emphasizing employee motivation. The structural perspective involves changes in structural conditions through power sharing, which are designed to efficiently distribute power within the organization by removing unnecessary management layers (Astley and Sachdeva 1984; Brass and Burkhardt 1993; Hardy and Leiba-O’ Sullivan 1998; Lawler 2000).

The psychologically based motivational approach is typified by Conger and Kanungo (1988), who theorized empowerment as a motivational process enhancing individuals’ self-efficacy. Motivational or psychological empowerment focuses on an employee’s subjective interpretations of organizational environments (Conger and Kanungo 1988; Spreitzer 1995). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) went on to describe a cognitive model of empowerment that included a series of task assessments, which affect an employee’s intrinsic motivation. Starting with Thomas and Velthouse’s (1990) task assessment cognitions, Spreitzer (1995) went on to examine the Thomas and Velthouse model and theorized empowerment as a multifaceted construct comprising the following four dimensions: meaning, competence, choice, and impact. According to Spreitzer (1995), meaning represents a fit between the requirements of the task and employees’ personal values, competence is a belief that employees have necessary skills to perform their job, choice is a belief that employees have control over their own work, and impact is a belief that employees have significant influence over work outcomes. From this, Spreitzer (1995) devised a twelve-item inventory to identify a level of psychological empowerment.

Despite its popularity, Spreitzer’s twelve-item scale of psychological empowerment has been shown to have different results in terms of factor solutions. Vardi (2000) found a four-factor result, as did Chiang and Jang (2008), and several studies found three-factor results (e.g., Siegall and Gardner 2000; Fulford and Enz 1995; Collins 2007; Hancer and George 2003). Our study follows the approach of Kim and George (2005), who identified the following two factors when using the Spreitzer instrument for restaurant workers: attitude (meaning + competence) and influence (self-determination + impact). Hancer, George, and Kim (2005) argued that this two-factor structure has discriminant validity and called for additional efforts to examine Spreitzer’s psychological empowerment scale. Gazzoli, Hancer, and Park (2010) took up this challenge among U.S. restaurant workers. They also reported a two-factor structure, but they termed their factors task meaningfulness and freedom to perform.

Management trustworthiness as a mediator between empowerment and commitment

Trust has been frequently examined in the organizational literature (Colquitt, Scott, and LePine 2007; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995). Trust refers to the willingness of a person, the “trustor,” to accept risk and be vulnerable to the other, the “trustee” (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995), based on the trustor’s assessment of the trustee. Studies have proposed three perception or evaluation criteria, namely, the trustee’s ability, integrity, and benevolence (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995; Mayer and Davis 1999).

Since the advent of the motivational conceptualization of psychological empowerment (Conger and Kanungo 1988; Spreitzer 1995; Thomas and Velthouse 1990), empirical investigations have been conducted to determine its relationship to employee outcomes such as job satisfaction (Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe 2000; Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason 1997) and organizational commitment (Bhatnagar 2007; Kraimer, Seibert, and Liden 1999; Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe 2000). Research in the hospitality area has studied psychological empowerment and found its positive effects on job satisfaction of hotel workers in Taiwan (Chiang and Jang 2008), restaurant workers in the United States (Gazzoli, Hancer, and Park 2010), and hotel managers in the United States (Salazar, Pfaffenberg, and Salazar 2006) and organizational commitment among hotel employees (Chiang and Jang 2008).

Conger and Kanungo (1988) argue that empowerment would work as an intrinsic motivator enhancing self-efficacy of employees that satisfies employees and then elicits organizational commitment from them. However, little conceptual explanation has been made as to how empowerment affects organizational commitment besides Conger and Kanungo’s assertions.

We believe that management trustworthiness is an outcome of employee empowerment. Psychological contract theory (Robinson and Rousseau 1994) proposes that employees’ perceptions regarding the nature of their employment relationship with their employer form psychological contracts. Employee empowerment may be a cue by which employees interpret the quality of the psychological contract. Empowered employees may believe that management acknowledges their value as well as their career development, which would foster feelings of trustworthiness toward management (Spreitzer and Mishra 2002).

Once employees perceive that the employer is trustworthy, they are more likely to take risks, go the extra mile on the job (Oketch 2004), and feel more affectively attached to the organization than those who are doubtful of management’s trustworthiness (Spreitzer and Mishra 2002).

We believe that the effect of management trustworthiness on organizational commitment will be more salient than that of empowerment, because we see management trustworthiness as being more directly connected to commitment, than is empowerment. For this reason, we hypothesize that psychological empowerment will have a positive effect on organizational commitment, but it will be mediated through management trustworthiness. Exhibit 1 illustrates our conceptual framework.

Exhibit 1:

Theoretical (structural) model

Hypothesis 1: The relationship between attitude, a dimension of psychological empowerment and organizational commitment, will be mediated by management trustworthiness among hotel restaurant employees.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between influence, a dimension of psychological empowerment and organizational commitment, will be mediated by management trustworthiness among hotel restaurant employees.

The Study

Sample and Procedure

We used a convenience sample of employees in twenty-nine upscale restaurants in seven full-service hotels in Seoul, South Korea, with the support of senior managers. One author administered an on-site employee survey at all participating hotel properties, using the following methodology. Before a shift started, the researcher was allowed to meet groups of fifteen to twenty employees and ask the subjects to complete a confidential questionnaire, which they placed in an envelope and dropped in a designated box. Of the 700 questionnaires distributed, 330 usable questionnaires were obtained for the analysis, resulting in a response rate of 47 percent. As shown in Exhibit 2, 53 percent of participants (n = 176) were female, the respondents’ median age was twenty-eight years and most respondents answered that they are nonsupervisory (n = 228) and regular employees (n = 244).

Exhibit 2:

Profile of the Respondents ( N = 330)

Characteristics	N	Percentage (%)
Gender
Males	152	46.1
Females	176	53.3
No response	2	0.6
Age (years)
≤20	24	7.3
21-30	185	56.1
31-40	83	25.1
41-50	17	5.1
No response	21	6.4
Tenure (years)
≤5	241	73.0
6–10	50	15.2
11–15	18	5.5
≥16	5	1.5
No response	16	4.8
Employment status
Regular	244	74.0
Temporary	81	24.5
No response	5	1.5
Organization level
Employee	228	69.1
Supervisor	72	21.8
Manager	30	9.1
Primary job
Waiter/waitress	214	64.8
Cashier	27	8.2
Bartender	7	2.1
Kitchen	22	6.7
Administration (office)	27	8.2
Others	25	7.6
No response	8	2.4
Education level
High school	26	7.9
Community college	156	47.3
Four years’ college	106	32.1
Graduate	38	11.5
No response	4	1.2

Measures

To measure psychological empowerment, we used a twelve-item scale developed by Spreitzer (1995). We also examined two subdimensions of psychological empowerment, attitude and influence, as individual latent constructs, as identified by Kim and George (2005). Sample questions of psychological empowerment included “My job is well within the scope of my abilities” (to gauge attitude) and “My opinion counts in work group decision making” (to gauge influence). Management trustworthiness was operationalized using the nine-item scale adapted from Meyer and Allen (1991). Sample questions read “Top management has specialized capabilities that can increase our performance”; “Top management tries to be fair in dealing with others”; and “Top management really looks out for what is important to me.” We measured trustworthiness for top management since they make final employment decisions such as promotion, compensation, or termination, while middle-level supervisors or managers only suggest those actions to top management. We then measured organizational commitment using the three-item scale adapted from Allen and Meyer (1990). Sample questions included “I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization” and “I feel like part of the family at this organization.” Psychological empowerment and organizational commitment were measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and management trustworthiness was measured on a similar 5-point scale. As recommended by Adler (1983), scale items originally written in English were translated into Korean and then back-translated to ensure equivalence. A pre-test with a pilot sample of ten hotel restaurant employees resulted in no changes.

Analysis of Data

We used principal components analysis to determine factor solutions for study constructs and verify reliabilities of measured variables and then structural equation modeling (SEM) consisting of a two-step procedure, measurement model, and structural model analyses (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). At the stage of measurement model analysis, we examined the discriminant validity of the research variables to identify a basis for their structural relationship in the model. Then at the stage of structural model analysis, we assessed the hypothesized theoretical model and estimated parameters. The full mediation and partial mediation models were then compared to identify a most suitable model for the data. SEM was performed using LISREL (version 8.30), and maximum likelihood (ML) was adopted as an estimation method since the assumption of multivariate normality of data was satisfied (Bollen 1989).

Study Results and Discussion

Preliminary Test

We performed data screening to verify normality and missing values of the research data set. First, we ascertained that the assumptions of univariate and multivariate normality of the research data set are satisfied. As expected, principal components analysis extracted four component factors. The measurement scale for psychological empowerment demonstrated two subdimensions, attitude (α = .88) and influence (α = .92), and measurement scales for both management trustworthiness and organizational commitment demonstrated one dimension each with acceptable Cronbach’s alpha (α = .93 and .82, respectively). All measurement items showed significant loadings to their respective construct.

The pattern and direction of the intercorrelations among latent constructs were as expected. As shown in Exhibit 3, the relationships of organizational commitment with the attitude and influence dimensions and management trustworthiness are statistically significant. The magnitude of the relationship between management trustworthiness and organizational commitment is the most salient (r = .46, p < .01) of these correlations, indicating the essential mediating role that management trust plays between empowerment and organizational commitment. Based on the logic in establishing a mediation effect suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986), it would be expected that the relationship between empowerment and commitment would come to be substantially reduced once one controls for the stronger effect of trustworthiness on commitment in the regression equation, since the size of the trustworthiness–commitment relationship is stronger than other relationships.

Exhibit 3:

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Constructs

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Attitude	5.43	0.93	–
2. Influence	4.48	1.15	0.45**	–
3. Management trustworthiness	2.96	0.81	0.19**	0.25**	–
4. Organizational commitment	4.52	1.16	0.43**	0.33**	0.46**	–

Measurement Model

Before examining specific relationships between variables in the research model, we examined the measurement model with confirmatory factor analysis to validate the constructs (Gerbing and Anderson 1988). To assess the overall fit of the research models, we applied a chi-square statistic (χ²), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fit indices (GFI), and the normed-fit index (NFI) (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993).

All four constructs in this research were verified to be four unique constructs. All measurement items showed significant loadings on their expected constructs, and the measurement model showed an acceptable degree of fit to the data, χ²(239, N = 330) = 533.00, RMSEA = 0.061, GFI = 0.88, NFI = 0.91, and comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95 (based on recommended values of Hu and Bentler 1999 and Brown and Cudeck 1989). As shown in Exhibit 4, all measurement items showed statistically significant loadings at the alpha level of .001. Cronbach’s alpha value of each measurement scale exceeded the minimum requirement of 0.70, indicating its internal consistency to corresponding construct. Composite reliability of each measurement scale ranged from 0.77 to 0.93, ensuring its unidimensionality. Discriminant validity was also thought to be ensured since the average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs were greater than the squared correlation between constructs and exceeded the minimum criterion of 0.50.

Exhibit 4:

Properties of the Measurement Model

Constructs and Indicators	Completely Standardized Loading	t Value	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted
Attitude			0.88	0.86	0.52
PE 1	0.84	–
PE 2	0.88	19.64
PE 3	0.88	19.44
PE 4	0.58	11.21
PE 5	0.62	12.13
PE 6	0.36	6.50
Influence			0.92	0.92	0.64
PE 7	0.80	–
PE 8	0.81	16.16
PE 9	0.77	15.01
PE 10	0.86	17.45
PE 11	0.81	16.10
PE 12	0.75	14.48
Management trustworthiness			0.93	0.93	0.60
MT 1	0.78	–
MT 2	0.81	20.48
MT 3	0.78	15.28
MT 4	0.78	15.35
MT 5	0.59	10.92
MT 6	0.82	16.38
MT 7	0.81	16.05
MT 8	0.80	15.78
MT 9	0.79	15.59
Organizational commitment			0.82	0.77	0.54
OC 1	0.88	–
OC 2	0.59	9.39
OC 3	0.70	10.99

Note: PE = psychological empowerment; MT = management trustworthiness; OC = organizational commitment.

Structural Models

First, we examined the fit of the hypothesized research model, which is the full-mediation model that does not include the dotted-line relationships in Exhibit 1. We compared that model with the partial-mediation model in which both attitude and influence were allowed to make a direct impact on organizational commitment aside from their impact through trustworthiness. Although the full-mediation model indicated an acceptable fit to the data, as shown in Exhibit 5, χ²(241, N = 330) = 606.62, RMSEA = 0.068, GFI = 0.87, NFI = 0.89, and CFI = 0.93, the partial-mediation model presented a significantly better fit to the data, χ²(239, N = 330) = 533.00, RMSEA = 0.061, GFI = 0.88, NFI = 0.91, and CFI = 0.95. With the partial-mediation model, the chi-square value improved significantly to the .001 level of alpha (Δχ² = 73.62, Δdf = 2). Therefore, we used the results from the partial-mediation model to explain the relationships among variables.

Exhibit 5:

Goodness of Fit of Structural Models

Model	χ²	df	RMSEA	GFI	AGFI	NFI	CFI
Full mediation model	606.62	241	0.068	0.87	0.83	0.89	0.93
Partial mediation model	533.00	239	0.061	0.88	0.85	0.91	0.95
Difference	73.62	2	0.007	−0.01	−0.02	−0.02	−0.02

Note: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.

As shown in Exhibit 6, attitude showed a partially mediated relationship with organizational commitment through management trustworthiness, while the relationship of influence to organizational commitment was fully mediated. The direct path from attitude to organizational commitment was shown as significant (β = .44, p < .001), and the indirect path was found to be significant from attitude to management trustworthiness (β = .13, p < .001) and from management trustworthiness to organizational commitment (β = .45, p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was partially supported. For the relationship of influence with organizational commitment, the direct path was shown to be nonsignificant (β = .05, p > .05). Here, the indirect paths were significant: from influence to management trustworthiness (β = .21, p < .001) and from management trustworthiness to organizational commitment (β = .45, p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was fully supported.

Exhibit 6:

Structural path coefficients in the partial mediation model

As a follow-up analysis, we compared the coefficients of direct effects of psychological empowerment on organizational commitment including management trustworthiness as a mediator to coefficients excluding trustworthiness, as Baron and Kenny (1986) suggested. The direct path from attitude to organizational commitment in the structural model (β = .44, p < .001) was smaller than that in the model that excludes management trustworthiness as a mediator (β = .51, p < .001) implying a partial mediation. On the other hand, while the direct path from influence to organizational commitment was shown to be nonsignificant in the structural model (β = .05, p > .05), it was significant in the model that excludes management trustworthiness as a mediator (β = .14, p < .001), implying a full mediation.

Practical Implications

This study presents empirical evidence that empowerment has a positive effect on employees’ evaluation of management. Given that management trustworthiness is a core element in assessing the quality of employment relationship (Oketch 2004), managers can empower employees by demonstrating that the firm values employees and cares about career development. That approach is in keeping with Howard and Foster (1999), who empirically demonstrated that employee empowerment is positively related to the perception of career planning and security among employees in U.S. high-technology companies.

Empowerment is also suggested as an antidote to the hospitality industry’s high turnover. Sparrowe (1994) found that hospitality employees who feel highly empowered report the lower level of turnover intentions. Thus, practicing empowerment could be used to secure the firm’s workforce as a signal of management’s willingness to develop employees’ career path.

We particularly want to underscore the salient positive effect of management trustworthiness on organizational commitment. The importance of management trustworthiness is thought to be a prerequisite for employee commitment. Hence, besides empowerment, managers need to identify other HR interventions that would augment employees’ trust in management. For example, a career consultation or open table between the manager and the employee can be a cue that the firm cherishes individual career success. Providing them with timely and appropriate performance feedback also ensures that employees are effectively treated by management on the job, leading to trustworthiness (Howard and Foster 1999).

Research Contributions and Limitations

This study demonstrates that the relationship between empowerment and organizational commitment is mediated by management trustworthiness, which we believe supports the psychological contract theory espoused by Robinson and Rousseau (1994). The data show that empowered employees are committed to the firm and see their management as being trustworthy. This is an important finding, since it helps to articulate how empowerment is associated with employee commitment to the organization in the context of motivational theories of empowerment through the mediation of management trustworthiness.

Management trustworthiness was found to be a salient antecedent in fostering employee commitment to the organization, and management trustworthiness fully mediated the relationship between influence and organizational commitment. Although studies have tested many constructs to predict organizational commitment, including newcomer socialization (Yang 2008), organizational support (Kim, Leong, and Lee 2006), work group cohesiveness (Heffner and Rentsch 2001), and supervisory support, training, empowerment, and rewards (Karatepe, Yavas, and Babakus 2007), we have found few studies that investigated the effect of management trustworthiness, particularly as a control variable to explain organizational commitment. By empirically showing a salient effect of management trustworthiness on commitment, this study poses the importance of trustworthiness of management to promote employees’ commitment to their firm.

In addition, this study serves as an alternative conceptualization of empowerment. The two-factor psychological structure of empowerment shows that discriminant validity resulted from the relationships of each dimension with management trustworthiness and organizational commitment. It is interesting to note that management trustworthiness fully mediated the influence–commitment relationship but only partially mediated the attitude–commitment relationship. This implies that the two-factor empowerment structure, as previously found by Kim and George (2005), is psychometrically sound, in contrast to studies that examined the effect of overall empowerment on organizational outcomes, rather than empowerment’s dimensions (e.g., Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe 2000; Siegall and Gardner 2000; Sparrowe 1994). This finding may help clarify the conflicting data over empowerment, since a study by Chiang and Jang (2008) found that none of the dimensions of empowerment influenced organizational commitment, but Gazzoli, Hancer, and Park (2010) identified a two-factor solution of empowerment and called for additional empirical research to further understand these relationships and their impact on performance, as we have done here.

In that regard, our study has limitations that highlight the need for future research. First, this study faces the danger of common-method variance, since it is cross-sectional and self-reported (Kline, Sulsky, and Rever-Moriyama 2000), and to potential reverse causality. To avoid the common method bias and to assist in explaining causal relationships among the constructs, future studies could use a longitudinal study design and seek for multiple sources of data such as supervisory ratings of interested variables.

Because of our sampling technique, these findings are not necessarily representative of other hotel or restaurant employees. Therefore, our model should be tested among employees of diverse hospitality operations. Our findings’ generalizability is also limited, given that the samples were drawn only from the hotel restaurants in South Korea. It is possible that management trustworthiness is more important to workers there than to those in other countries. Hofstede (2001) argued that South Koreans are shown to have low levels of tolerance for uncertainty, which might magnify the impact of management trustworthiness. Therefore, replication of this study is highly encouraged using samples from other cultural settings.

In addition to replication of this research in different settings, it is a promising avenue for future studies to examine the effects of managers’ positions and employees’ status on the relationships that we tested. For example, one could test the effects of a manager’s organizational level—supervisory versus nonsupervisory (Kim, Murrmann, and Lee 2009)—and an employee’s status—regular versus temporary (Buonocore 2010). In our sample, we found differences based on those organizational moderators. The strength of the relationships of empowerment with management trustworthiness and organizational commitment for nonsupervisory employees (r = .24 to .27, n = 228) was slightly different from that for their supervisory counterparts (r = .24 to .37, n = 102). Likewise, the magnitude of the relationships of interest were differently manifested for regular workers (r = .28 to .37, n = 244) from temporary workers (r = .15 to .20, n = 81). This implies that the results might be different in a study that focuses on a particular subgroup of employees.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Adler

N. J.

1983. A typology of management studies involving culture. Journal of International Business Studies 14 (2): 29-47.

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.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411-23.

Astley

W. G.

Sachdeva

P. S.

1984. Structural sources of intraorganizational power: A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review 9 (1): 104-14.

Baron

Kenny

1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173-82.

Bhatnagar

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

Bollen

K. A.

1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.

Bowen

D. E.

Lawler

E. E.

1992. The empowerment of service workers: What, why, when, and how. Sloan Management Review 33 (3): 31-39.

Brass

D. J.

Burkhardt

M. E.

1993. Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal 36 (3): 441-71.

10.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

1989. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 24 (4): 445-455.

11.

Buonocore

2010. Contingent work in the hospitality industry: A mediating model of organizational attitudes. Tourism Management 31 (3): 378-85.

12.

Chiang

C. F.

Jang

2008. The antecedents and consequences of psychological empowerment: The case of Taiwan’s hotel companies. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 32 (1): 40-61.

13.

Cichy

R. F.

Cha

Kim

2009. The relationship between organizational commitment and contextual performance among private club leaders. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (1): 53-62.

14.

Collins

2007. Understanding the relationships between Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, and turnover intent in a limited-service restaurant environment. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.

15.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

LePine

J. A.

2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust. Propensity: A meta-analytic examination of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4): 909-27.

16.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

1988. The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review 13 (3): 471-82.

17.

Fulford

M. D.

Enz

C. A.

1995. The impact of empowerment on service employees. Journal of Managerial Issues 7 (2): 161-75.

18.

Gazzoli

Hancer

Park

2010. The role and effect of job satisfaction and empowerment on customers’ perception of service quality: A study in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (1): 56-77.

19.

Gerbing

D. W.

Anderson

J. C.

1988. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research 25 (2): 186-92.

20.

Hall

D. T.

Schneider

Nygren

H. T.

1970. Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (2): 176-90.

21.

Hancer

George

R. T.

2003. Psychological empowerment of non-supervisory employees working in full-service restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management 22 (1): 3-16.

22.

Hancer

George

R. T.

Kim

B. P.

2004. An examination of dimensions of psychological empowerment scale for service employees. Psychological Reports 97 (2): 357-62.

23.

Hardy

Leiba-O’Sullivan

1998. The power behind empowerment: Implications for research and practice. Human Relations 51 (4): 451-84.

24.

Heffner

T. S.

Rentsch

J. R.

2001. Organizational commitment and social interaction: A multiple constituencies approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior 59 (3): 471-90.

25.

Hofstede

2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Howard

Foster

1999. The influence of human resource practices on empowerment and employee perceptions of management commitment to quality. Journal of Quality Management 4 (1): 5-22.

27.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1): 1-55.

28.

Jöreskog

Long

J. S.

1993. Introduction in Testing Structural Equation Models, Bollen

Kenneth A.

Long

J. Scott

. Eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

29.

Kanter

R. M.

1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

30.

Karatepe

O. M.

Magaji

A. B.

2008. Work-family conflict and facilitation in the hotel industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (4): 395-412.

31.

Karatepe

O. M.

Yavas

Babakus

2007. The effects of customer orientation and job resources on frontline employees’ job outcomes. Services Marketing Quarterly 29 (1): 61-79.

32.

Kim

B. P.

George

R. T.

2005. The relationship between Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and psychological empowerment: A quick casual restaurant employee correlation study. Journal of Hospitality Tourism Research 29 (4): 468-83.

33.

Kim

B. P.

Murrmann

S. K.

Lee

2009. Moderating effects of gender and organizational level between role stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4): 612-19.

34.

Kim

W. G.

Leong

J. K.

Lee

Y. K.

2006. Effect of service orientation on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention of leaving in a casual dining chain restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality Management 24 (2): 171-93.

35.

Kline

T. J.

Sulsky

L. M.

Rever-Moriyama

S. D.

2000. Common method variance and specification errors: A practical approach to detection. Journal of Psychology 134 (4): 401-22.

36.

Kraimer

M. L.

Seibert

S. E.

Liden

R. C.

1999. Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59 (1): 127-42.

37.

Lawler

2000. From the ground up. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

38.

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): 407-17.

39.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (1): 123-36.

40.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

1995. An integrative model of organization trust. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709-34.

41.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1: 61-89.

42.

Mowday

R. T.

Steer

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

1979. Employee-organization linkages. New York: Academic Press.

43.

Oketch

M. O.

2004. The corporate stake in social cohesion. Corporate Governance 204 (3): 5-19.

44.

Ottenbacher

Gnoth

2005. How to develop successful hospitality innovation. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 46 (2): 205-22.

45.

Robinson

S. L.

Rousseau

D. M.

1994. Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior 15 (3): 245-59.

46.

Salazar

Pfaffenberg

Salazar

(2006). Locus of control vs. employee empowerment and the relationship with hotel managers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 5 (1): 1-15.

47.

Schlessinger

L. A.

Heskett

J. L.

1991. Breaking the cycle of failure in services. Sloan Management Review 32 (3): 17-28.

48.

Siegall

Gardner

2000. Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review 29 (6): 703-23.

49.

Sparrowe

R. T.

1994. Empowerment in the hospitality industry: An exploration of antecedents and outcomes. Hospitality Research Journal 17 (3): 51-73.

50.

Spreitzer

G. M.

1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace. Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal 38 (5): 1442-65.

51.

Spreitzer

G. M.

Kizilos

M. A.

Nason

S. W.

1997. A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management 23 (5): 679-704.

52.

Spreitzer

G. M.

Mishra

A. K.

2002. To stay or to go: Voluntary survivor turnover following an organizational downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23 (6): 707-29.

53.

Steers

R. M.

1977. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 22 (1): 46-56.

54.

Thomas

K. W.

Velthouse

B. A.

1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review 15 (4): 666-81.

55.

Vardi

2000. Psychological empowerment as a criterion for adjustment to a new job. Psychological Reports 87 (3): 1083-93.

56.

Yang

J. T.

2008. Effect of newcomer socialisation on organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention in the hotel industry. Service Industries Journal 28 (4): 429-43.