1995
DOI: 10.1177/1059601195201002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Exploratory Analysis of Employee Participation

Abstract: In this study, the key factors in Edward Lawler's conceptualization of employee involvement are examined with respect to program c participative management efforts reported by Fortune 1000 firms. The results support the proposition that the degree of employee involvement existing within an organization is related to both the use of participative management programs and average participation within programs. In addition, the results support the contention that measurement issues continue to hinder efforts to cl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0
7

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
18
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…A growing literature shows that an employee empowerment approach (or employee empowerment practices) is positively related to performance (Fernandez and Moldogaziev 2011;Kirkman and Rosen 1999;Lee, Cayer, and Lan 2006;Spreitzer 1995), innovativeness (Fernandez and Moldogaziev 2013c;Spreitzer 1995), job satisfaction (Fulford and Enz 1995;Kim 2002;Lee, Cayer, and Lan 2006;Wright and Kim 2004;Wu and Short 1996), organizational commitment (Guthrie 2001;Kirkman and Rosen 1999), and job involvement (Coye and Belohlav 1995) and negatively related to turnover (Arthur 1994;Grissom 2012;Moynihan and Landuyt 2008). While studies have made important contributions to our understanding of employee empowerment as managerial practice and its relationship to key organizational outcomes, a tendency among them-particularly those from the public sector-has been to conceptualize employee empowerment as a one-dimensional construct (e.g., focusing just on discretion or involvement) or to operationalize employee empowerment using a single item, without capturing the full breadth of an employee empowerment approach as conceptualized in the literature (Ahearne, Mathieu, and Rapp 2005;Arnold et al 2000;Lawler 1992, 1995;Kanter 1979).…”
Section: Employee Empowermentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A growing literature shows that an employee empowerment approach (or employee empowerment practices) is positively related to performance (Fernandez and Moldogaziev 2011;Kirkman and Rosen 1999;Lee, Cayer, and Lan 2006;Spreitzer 1995), innovativeness (Fernandez and Moldogaziev 2013c;Spreitzer 1995), job satisfaction (Fulford and Enz 1995;Kim 2002;Lee, Cayer, and Lan 2006;Wright and Kim 2004;Wu and Short 1996), organizational commitment (Guthrie 2001;Kirkman and Rosen 1999), and job involvement (Coye and Belohlav 1995) and negatively related to turnover (Arthur 1994;Grissom 2012;Moynihan and Landuyt 2008). While studies have made important contributions to our understanding of employee empowerment as managerial practice and its relationship to key organizational outcomes, a tendency among them-particularly those from the public sector-has been to conceptualize employee empowerment as a one-dimensional construct (e.g., focusing just on discretion or involvement) or to operationalize employee empowerment using a single item, without capturing the full breadth of an employee empowerment approach as conceptualized in the literature (Ahearne, Mathieu, and Rapp 2005;Arnold et al 2000;Lawler 1992, 1995;Kanter 1979).…”
Section: Employee Empowermentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been well documented in the literature that formalized schemes for employee involvement are likely to increase work performance and the willingness of employees to take on more responsibilities (e.g., Gollan and Davis, 2001; Kim, 2002; Mackie, Holahan, and Gottlieb, 2001; Markey, 2001). Moreover, the findings of Coye and Belohlav's (1995) study suggest that programmatic efforts to involve employees tend to encourage individual employees to actively participate in decision‐making processes and to give their suggestions to the organization. The presence of this structural‐type voice mechanism not only provides an infrastructure that makes it easier for employees to voice their concerns about organi‐zational matters, but also obliges employees to give suggestions.…”
Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A growing literature indicates that employee empowerment is positively related to performance (Fernandez and Moldogaziev ; Kirkman and Rosen ; Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford , ; Lee, Cayer, and Lan ; Nielsen and Pedersen ; Spreitzer ). Related empirical studies show a positive link between employee empowerment and several important work‐related attitudes, including innovativeness (Fernandez and Moldogaziev ; Spreitzer ), job satisfaction (Bowen and Lawler ; Davies, Laschinger, and Andrusyszyn ; Fulford and Enz ; Kim ; Klecker and Loadman ; Kuokkanen, Leino‐Kilpi, and Katajisto ; Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford , ; Lee, Cayer, and Lan ; Sarmiento, Laschinger, and Iwasiw ; Savery and Luks ; Seibert, Silver, and Randolph ; Ugboro and Obeng ; Wright and Kim ; Wu and Short ), organizational commitment (Guthrie ; Kirkman and Rosen ; Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford , ), and job involvement (Coye and Belohlav ). Nearly all of these empirical studies analyzed the direct effects of employee empowerment on performance and work‐related attitudes independently of each other and without considering indirect or mediating effects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%