In this paper we discuss key aspects of empowering leadership as a basis for conceptualizing and operationalizing the construct. The conceptualization resulted in eight behavioral manifestations arranged within three influence processes, which were investigated in a sample of 317 subordinates in Study 1. The results supported the validity and reliability of a two-dimensional, 18-item instrument, labeled the Empowering Leadership Scale (ELS).In Study 2 (N = 215) and Study 3 (N = 831) the factor structure of ELS was cross-validated in two independent samples from different work settings. Preliminary concurrent validation in Study 1 and 2 found that ELS had a positive relationship to several subordinate variables, among others self-leadership and psychological empowerment. In Study 3 ELS was compared with scales measuring leader-member exchange (LMX) and transformational leadership. Discriminant validity was supported, and moreover, ELS showed incremental validity beyond LMX and transformational leadership when predicting psychological empowerment. The notion of empowerment was introduced in the field of management in the 1980s, and seems based on a need for an organizational concept that could promote employee productivity (Bartunek & Spreitzer, 2006) relative to fundamental technological and commercial changes that took place both in businesses and the public sector (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011;Hill & Huq, 2004). These changes led to, among others, increased customer/client orientation, more flexible, flattened, and decentralized organization designs, and improvements in quality and efficiency for most organizations. The nature of work has also changed substantially in the last decades by becoming more complex and cognitively demanding (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007), and highly skilled and educated "knowledge workers" have become the core of a rapidly growing segment of the workforce (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001). KeywordsIn this changing "landscape" empowering leadership (EL) has emerged as a particular form of leadership, distinct from other approaches such as directive, transactional, and transformational leadership (Pearce et al., 2003). At its core, employee empowerment involves enhanced individual motivation at work through the delegation of responsibility and authority to the lowest organizational level where a competent decision can be made (Conger & Kanungo, 1988;Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). As such, EL may generally be defined as (2000) noted that there is little theory focusing on the role of effective empowering leader behavior, which seems equally valid today. We therefore aimed to fill some of this lack and additionally identify key mediators of EL. Accordingly, the main purpose of the present paper is, at the individual level of analysis, (1) to theoretically underpin and define EL as guideline for (2) conceptualization and operationalization of the construct, (3) to identify central mediators, and (4) to build, refine, and validate a new instrument to measure the construct. We in...
Over the past three decades, empowerment interventions and practices have emerged as important approaches to promoting constructive attitudes and behaviors among employees. Work designs that flow from such approaches are characterized by autonomy, self-leadership, and delegation of responsibility and decision-making authority. This movement represents a fundamental shift of power down the hierarchy to subordinates with high levels of appropriate knowledge and skills, and the terms knowledge work and knowledge workers are expressions that have emerged to characterize this change (e.g., Pyöriä, 2005). Despite attempts to dismiss empowerment as a passing fad (e.g., Abrahamson, 1996), research findings and experiences from practical implementation (e.g., Birdi et al., 2008) have demonstrated promising results that support the relevance of empowerment as it contributes to positive outcomes for both organizations and individuals (Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004). This was recently underscored by Seibert, Wang, and Courtright (2011) in their review of psychological and team empowerment in organizations, in which they concluded that "empowerment is an effective approach for improving employee attitudes and work behaviors in a broad range of contexts (i.e., industries, occupations, and geographic regions)" (p. 995).In the academic management literature, there has gradually emerged two main approaches to empowerment at work (Spreitzer, 2008). The first of these is a sociostructural perspective that involves interventions and practices by the organization, leaders, and managers that aim to empower employees (e.g., Bennis & Nanus, 1985;Lawler, 1986). The second is a psychological perspective based on employees' perceptions of their work role, conceptualized as a motivational construct called psychological empowerment manifested in four cognitions: meaning, competence, selfdetermination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995;Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). These two approaches are related, since psychological empowerment can be viewed as intrinsic task motivation shaped on an ongoing basis by, among other things, one's work environment (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This relationship was also underscored by Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, and Wilk (2004), who stated that "psychological empowerment represents a reaction of employees to structural empowerment conditions" (p. 528).Leaders are proposed to have a central role in the empowerment process of employees (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003;Randolph & Kemery, 2011), but this role is somewhat 565819J LOXXX10.
This paper aims to link structural empowerment to employee-driven innovation (EDI) with psychological empowerment as a mediation mechanism. Recently, there has been an increase in interest in utilizing all sources of knowledge in an organization to stimulate innovation among all employees. A clear understanding of some of the mechanisms used to achieve this is needed. The paper applies a quantitative approach based on two studies. Study 1 involved a total of 228 employees in a public sector organization, while study 2 involved 60 employees from a private sector organization. We employed structural equation modeling to test the hypothesized relationships among the variables. It was determined that both structural empowerment and psychological empowerment have a direct positive association with EDI. Second, the relationship between structural empowerment and EDI was partially mediated by psychological empowerment. EDI can only happen in an organization if employers and managers empower the ordinary employees to not only generate creative ideas but also to participate in its development and implementation.
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore the association of two opposite leadership styles with employee-driven innovation and how the leader–member exchange mediates these relationships.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used online surveys administrated in two waves to collect data from 315 employees working in the banking sector in Norway. Exogenous variables, which include empowering and directive leadership styles, were measured at time 1, while the endogenous variables of the leader–member exchange and employee-driven innovation were measured at time 2. The data were analysed using structural equation modelling.FindingsThe findings confirmed that empowering leaders are more likely to have a positive relationship with their subordinates and in turn, stimulate employee-driven innovation. Conversely, the directive leadership style was found to have a negative relationship with the quality of the relationship between leaders and subordinates. It was also found that the association of directive leadership with employee-driven innovation was negative and indirect through the leader–member exchange.Research limitations/implicationsThe data for the study were collected from a single organisation, which limits the generalisability of the study. Several other leadership styles were not covered in this study.Originality/valueThis paper provides empirical evidence to support the association between leadership styles and employee-driven innovation. Analyses of these relationship types are unavailable in the employee-driven innovation literature.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.