Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
- SocialSciences and Behavioral Sciences (2011) 000–000 Procedia - SocialProcedia and Behavioral 30 (2011) 1549 – 00 1554
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
WCPCG-2011
Survey of relationship between the psychological empowerment of employees with organizational learning RahmatollahAllahyaria, Behzadshahbazib, SeyedMohamadMirkamalic Kamal Kharazid a Master of Educational Administration, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran b Master of Educational Administration, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran c Full Professor of Tehran University, Tehran, Iran d Assistant professor of Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract The aim of this research was to investigate the relationship between the empowerment with organizational learning among the staff of TehranUniversity. Research methodology was descriptive and based on correlation. In this study 130 staffs were selected by proportional stratified sampling method. Results indicate that: 1) Results of Pearson Correlation showed that empowerment has positive relations with organizational learning. 2) Result of Regression analysis demonstrates that sense of incorporation with others and sense of competence predict the organizational learning. 3) Result of One Sample T-Test showed that there isn‘t significant difference between empowerment and organizational learning of male and female employers. Also Result showed that there isn‘t significant difference between empowerment and organizational learning of managers and employees. Keywords: Empowerment, Organizational Learning, University of Tehran staff;
1. Introduction Empowerment has been regarded as an important concept because it potentially affects outcomes that benefit individuals and organizations (Han & et al, 2009). There has been increasing interest in the concept of empowerment among both organizational theorists and practitioners (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Moye&Henkin, 2006; Moye&Henkin, 2005). Researchers and practitioners have embraced empowerment as a way to encourage and increase decision making at lower levels in an organization and, concurrently, enrich employee‘s work experience (Liden& et al, 2000). Conger and Kanungo(1988) viewed empowerment as a motivational construct. Thomas and Velthouse(1990), extending the general approach taken by Conger and Kanungo(1988), suggested that empowerment should be viewed as a multidimensional construct. Empowerment has been discussed from two different perspectives— organizational attribute and individual psychological attribute (Baker et al., 2007; Thomas &Velthouse, 1990). In this study, we examined psychological empowerment among employees. Studies have revealed that permanent employees experienced higher levels of empowerment than did temporary employees in the same organization
BehzadShahbazi. Tel: +989139209314 ; Fax: +9888221255 E-mail address:
[email protected]
1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 2nd World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.301
1550
RahmatollahAllahyari /etProcedia al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 1549 – 1554 RahmatollahAllahyari – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000
(Felfe et al., 2008; Kim, 2007). Spreitzer(1995) recognized that, despite the increasing interest in empowerment in the literature, the absence of a theoretically-driven measure of psychological empowerment in a work environment would continue to deter substantive related research in the workplace. However, Spreitzer(2007), believes that employees have experience of the nature of empowerment that is called "psychological empowerment"(Vacharakiat, 2008). According to Spreitzer(1995), psychological empowerment is an internal stimulator that allows employees to feel or perceive they have the ability to get things done. This perception results in work effectiveness and job satisfaction. Spreitzer(2007) describes psychological empowerment as a group of psychological states essential for a person to feel that he or she can control the relationship to his or her own work. Instead of focusing on managerial practices which share power among employees at different levels, the psychological vantage point focus on employees‘ experience of their own work and the nature of that unique experience(Vacharakiat, 2008). In her validated measure of psychological empowerment, Spreitzer(1995) defined psychological empowerment as a motivational construct manifested in four cognitions: specifically, meaning, competence, self-determination, impact(Moye&Henkin, 2006; Chow & et al, 2006). Meaning, or purpose, addresses the fit between the needs of one‘s work role and the collection of individual beliefs, values and behaviors(Spreitzer, 1995; Denton &Kleiman, 2001). Competence, or self-efficacy that is specific to one‘s work, is a belief in one‘s capability to perform work activities with skill and is similar to the concepts of agency beliefs, personal mastery, or effort-performance expectancy (Spreitzer, 1995; Denton &Kleiman, 2001). Self-determination or autonomy involves exercising control over the methods used to perform work activities, the scheduling of those activities, and the standards used to judge performance (Spreitzer, 1995; Denton &Kleiman, 2001; Breaugh, 1985). Impact is the degree to which one can influence strategic, administration, or operating outcomes in one‘s department or work unit (Spreitzer, 1995; Denton &Kleiman, 2001). Participation: involvement in mental and emotional status of individuals in a group that raises him to the realization of goals and helped the group to share the responsibility to know the group (Davis, and Newstrom, 1989). These cognitions reflect employees' orientation toward their jobs and have been associated with positive results(Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer, Kizilos, &Nason, 1997; Harris et al, 2009). Thomas and Velthouse(1990) suggested that the organizational environment can have a strong influence on empowerment(Moye&Henkin, 2005). Empowerment is a key determinant of quality of service and customer satisfaction. Empowered employees use their discretion to take care of the customers‘ needs and solve their problems so that service quality and customer satisfaction are enhanced. Empowerment leads to important behavioural outcomes. For instance, empowerment enhances the self-efficacy of employees (Conger and Kanungo, 1988) as discretion allows them to decide the best way to serve customers (Gist and Mitchell, 1992). Empowerment also leads to employees becoming more adaptive (Scott and Bruce, 1994). With empowerment, employees will be able to accommodate customer requests and achieve the highest service quality standards. Empowerment is a prerequisite for successful quality initiatives and should be incorporated into the service delivery process so that customer needs are addressed more quickly and resolved more efficiently. Employees will provide better quality service and feel a sense of pride in their job if they are trusted and empowered to resolve any guest service issues (Chow & et al, 2006). All humans are born with the ability to learn and it is thought learning that they adapt to the changing and evolving environment. Learning leads to new insights and concepts. It often occurs when we take effective actions and we detect and correct our own mistakes (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Sharifirad, 2010: 323-327). Organizational learning is a necessary resource and capability for firms seeking to sustain a competitive advantage in today‘s market place (Barney, 1991). According to resource based theory, resources include all the ―assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge and etc., controlled by a firm that enable the firm to conceive of and implement strategies that are efficient and effective‖ (Barney, 1991, P. 101). In this light, organizational learning, defined as the capability for organizations to create, disseminate, and act upon generated knowledge, can be regarded as a source (Auh and Mengue, 2005; Sharifirad, 2010: 323-327). To present just a few of them, Senge (1990) defines organizational learning as ‗a continuous testing of experience and its transformation into knowledge available to the whole organization and relevant to their mission‘, 2
RahmatollahAllahyari et al. // Procedia Procedia –- Social – 1554 RahmatollahAllahyari Social and and Behavioral Behavioral Sciences Sciences 30 00 (2011) (2011) 1549 000–000
1551
while Huber (1991) sees it as a combination of four processes: information acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory. Argyris and Schön (1996) are even less restricting in their definition, declaring that organizational learning emerges when organizations acquire information (knowledge, understandings, know-how, techniques and procedures) of any kind by any means. However, the dominant paradigm for understanding organizational learning has taken very much from the information-processing perspective of organizations (Cyert and March, 1963). According to it, the organizations interact with the environment constantly to capture information (Hong, 1999). Dimovski (1994) provides an overview of previous research and identifies four perspectives on organizational learning. His model manages to merge informational, interpretational, strategic and behavioural approach to organizational learning and defines it as a process of information acquisition, information interpretation and resulting behavioural and cognitive changes, which should in turn have an impact on organizational performance. Thurbin(1994) defined learning organization as one, which improves its knowledge and understanding of itself and its environment over time, by facilitating and making use of the learning of its individual members(Thurbin, 1994; Mansor et al, 2010: 62-75). 2. Research Questions 1) There is a significant relationship between empowerment with organizational learning among the staff of Tehran University. 2) Psychological empowerment dimensions predict organizational learning. 3)There is a significant difference between empowerment and organizational learning of male and female employees in the Tehran University. 4)There is a significant difference between empowerment and organizational learning of managers and employees in the Tehran University. 3. Research Methodology Research methodology was descriptive and based on correlation. 3.1. Samples and procedures Statistical population of this research includes all employees of the staff area of Tehran University. The population size was 974, which 130 employees were chosen by proportional stratified sampling method. We used the Spreitzer's empowerment questioner and NEFE's organizational learning questioner for collecting data. 3.2. Measures The psychological empowerment questionnaire: This questionnaire prepared by Spreitzer (1995) includes dimensions of meaning, competence, self-determination, impact and incorporation. This questionnaire includes 19 questions and it measures empowerment in a discriminative way and with the use of Likert‘s five rating scale. Calculated reliability of mentioned questionnaire in this research was = 0.90. The organizational learning questionnaire: This questionnaire prepared by NEFE (2001) includes dimensions ofShared vision, Organizational culture, Team learning, Strategy, Corporative leadership, Competence development, Organizational structure. This questionnaire includes 21 questions and it measures organizational learning in a discriminative way and with the use of seven rating scale. Calculated reliability of mentioned questionnaire in this research was = 0.86. 4. Results 1) There is a significant relationship between empowerment with organizational learning among the staff of Tehran University. 3
1552
RahmatollahAllahyari /etProcedia al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 1549 – 1554 RahmatollahAllahyari – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000
In table (1) the relation between the elements of empowerment and organizational learning of Tehran university staffs is presented. Table1: Simple correlations between the elements of empowerment and organizational learning
Organizational learning
Overall Empowerment
Meaning
Competence
Selfdetermination
Impact
Incorporation
r
0.656
0.466
0.61
0.478
0.536
0.637
p
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
The results indicated that there is a significant relation between psychological empowerment and its elements and organizational learning. Among empowerment dimensions, incorporation has the greatest relation (r=0.637) with overall organizational learning. 2) Psychological empowerment dimensions predict organizational learning. In the following table (2) the results of multiple regression analysis with the use of stepwise method between empowerment dimensions and organizational learning is presented. Table 2: Multiple regression analysis of empowerment dimensions and organizational learning
Predictor, V Model incorporation
R
R2
0.465
0.416
competence
0.671
0.451
P 1 = 0.645 T=8.306 P=0.001 = 0.443 T=3.986 P=0.001
2
= 0.276 T=2.480 P=0.015
From five empowerment dimensions that have been entered into regression formula as predict variables, three dimensions of Meaning, Impact and Self-determination are omitted and two dimensions of Incorporation (=0.645) Competence (=0.276) predict organizational learning. A relations between two mentioned predictor variables and organizational learning is significant. In general 0.451 of organizational learning variations is explained by them (R2=0.451). 3)There is a significant difference between empowerment and organizational learning of male and female employees in the Tehran University. As it is shown in table (3), the comparison between data means indicates a significant statistical difference. The results also represent no significant difference between empowerment and organizational learning of male and female employees. Table 3: One sample T test for measuring empowerment and organizational learning of male and female employees Mean
T
df
Sig (2-tailed)
Male
female
Mean difference
Empowerment
1.177
110
0.493
59.19
55.30
3.89336
Organizational learning
0.689
102
0.242
65.70
63
4
2.69643
1553
RahmatollahAllahyari et al. // Procedia – 1554 RahmatollahAllahyari Procedia -–Social Socialand andBehavioral BehavioralSciences Sciences30 00(2011) (2011)1549 000–000
The results observed in table (3) demonstrate that there isn‘t significant difference between psychological empowerment of male and female employees in the Tehran University (T=1.177, P=0.493). Also there isn‘t significant difference between organizational learning of male and female employees in the Tehran University (T=0.689, P=0.242). 4)There is a significant difference between empowerment and organizational learning of managers and employees in the Tehran University. As it is shown in table (4), the comparison between data means indicates a significant statistical difference. The results also represent no significant difference between empowerment and organizational learning of managers and employees in the Tehran University. Table 4: One sample T test for measuring empowerment and organizational learning of managers and employees
Empowerment Organizational learning
Mean
T
df
Sig (2-tailed)
Manager
Employees
Mean difference
1.261
94
0.210
61.94
55.97
5.96649
63.87
64.70
0.151
87
0.880
0.82363
The results observed in table (4) demonstrate that there isn‘t significant difference between psychological empowerment of Managers and Employees in the Tehran University (T=1.261, P=0.21). Also there isn‘t significant difference between organizational learning of Managers and Employees in the Tehran University (T=0.151, P=0.88).
5. Conclusion This research aims to explain psychological empowerment based on organizational learning. Findings of this research show that there is a significant relation between empowerment dimensions and its elements with organizational learning. The studies of Shafi(2006), Dastgerdi(2008), Khanalizadeh (2008), Han et al(2009) Moye&Henkin(2006) confirm the results presented in this research. Among empowerment dimensions, incorporation has the greatest relation with overall organizational learning. This matter revealed the importance and necessity of developing programs about employee participation in decision making, job activities, job enrichment, job rotation. Findings of multiple regressions indicate that Incorporation and Competence dimensions have more contribution in prediction organizational learning. In general 0.451 of organizational learning variations is explained by them (R2=0.451). The results one sample T-test demonstrates that there isn‘t significant difference between psychological empowerment of male and female employees in the Tehran University. Also there isn‘t significant difference between organizational learning of male and female employees in Tehran University. Findings of this research show that there isn‘t significant difference between psychological empowerment of Managers and Employees in the Tehran University. Also there isn‘t significant difference between organizational learning of Managers and Employees in Tehran University. Finally the findings of research show that: Tehran university staffs are in high level concerning psychological empowerment dimensions.
References Argyris, C., &Schön, D. A. (1996).Organizational learning II: theory, method and practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C., &Schon, D., (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading MA: Addison- Wesley. Al-Issa, A., & Al-Bulushi, A. (2011). Mere indolence or genuine Hindrance: Paucity of publishing in ELT at Sultan Qaboos University. Cypriot Journal Of Educational Sciences, 6(1), 2-12. Auh, S., &Mengue, B. (2005).Balancing exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of competitive intensity.Journal of Business Research, 58, 1652-1661. 5
1554
RahmatollahAllahyari/ et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 1549 – 1554 RahmatollahAllahyari Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000
Baker, C.M., McDaniel, A.M., Fredricson, K.C., & Gallegos, E.C. (2007). Empowerment among Latina nurses in Mexico, New York and Indiana. International Nursing Review, 54(2) 124–129. Barney, J.B. (1991). Organization resources and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Management, 1, 99- 120. Breaugh, J.A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy.Human Relations, 38, 551-570. Cho, Irene Hau-siu., Lo, Thamis Wing-chun., Sha, Zhenquan.,& Hong, Jiehua. (2006). The impact of developmental experience. Empowerment, and organizational support on catering service staff performance. Journal of Hospitality Management,25, 478-495. Davis, K., &Newstrom, J.W. (1989).Human behaviour at work: organizational behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill. Conger, J.A., &Kanungo, R.N. (1988).The Empowerment Process Integrating Theory and Practice.Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471482. Cyert, R.M., &March, J.G. (1963).Behavioural theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Denton, David. W. &Kleiman, Lawrence.S. (2001).Job tenure as a moderator of the relationship between autonomy and satisfaction.Applied of H.R.M. Research, 6(2), 105-114. Dimovski, V., (1994).Organizational learning and competitive advantage. Cleveland: PhD Thesis. Felfe, J., Schmook, R., Schyns, B., & Six, B. (2008). Does the form of employment make a difference? commitment of traditional, temporary, and self-employed workers. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 72(1), 81–94. Gist, M.E., &Mitchell, R.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability .Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211. Han, Sang-Sook., Moon, Sook.Ja.,&Yun, EunKyoung. (2009). Empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: comparison of permanent and temporary nurses in Korea. Applied Nursing Research, 22(4), 15-20. Harris, Kenneth.J., Wheeler, Anthony R. K., &Kacmar, Michele. (2009). Leader–member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 371-382. Hong, J. (1999). Structuring for organizational learning.The learning organization, 6(4), 173-185. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing process and the literatures. Organization science, 2(1), 88-115. Kim, J. K. (2007). A comparison of organizational commitment, in-role, extra-role behaviour of regular employees and irregular employees in hotel companies.Journal of Korean Academic Society of Hospitality Administration, 39, 61–79. Liden, R.., Wayne, S.,&Sparrowe, R. (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), 407-16. Mansor, Norudin., Abdul Malik, Noor Hafidzah., &Che Mat, Azman. (2010). Enculturation of Organizational Learning for Developing Competency: a Case of Malaysian Islamic Banking Institution. E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership,8(1), 62-75. Moye, Meldina J., &Henkin, Alane B. (2005). Teacher- principal relationships: Exploring linkages Between Empowerment & Interpersonal Trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(3), 260-277. Moye, Meldina.J.,&Henkin, Alane.B. (2006). Exploring Association between Employee Empowerment & Interpersonal Trust In Managers. Journal of Management Development, 25(2), 101-117. Scott, S.G.,& Bruce, R.A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behaviour: a path model of individual innovation in the work place. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. Sharifirad, Mohammad Sadegh. (2010). Relationship between knowledge inertia and organizational learning.International Journal of information Technology and Knowledge management, 2(2), 323-327. Sprietzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in The Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management Journal, 3(1), 1372-1445. Sprietzer, 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. 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. Thurbin, P.J. (1994). Implementing the learning organization: the 17 th days programme. London: Pitman Publishing, UK. Vacharakiat, Marayart. (2008). The Relationships of Empowerment, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment among Filipino and American Registered Nurses Working in the U.S.A. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at George Mason University.
6
