CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedía
Social and Behavioral Sciences
ELSEVIER Procedía - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 1549 - 1554
WCPCG-2011
Survey of relationship between the psychological empowerment of employees with organizational learning
RahmatollahAllahyaria, Behzadshahbazib*, SeyedMohamadMirkamalic Kamal Kharazid
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:b_shahbazi2005@yahoo.com
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
1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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
(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',
while Huber (1991) sees it as a combination of four processes: information acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory. Argyris and Schon (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. Saaples 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 a = 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 a = 0.86.
4. Results
1) There is a significant relationship between empowerment with organizational learning among the staff of Tehran University.
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
Meaning Self- Incorporation
Empowerment Competence determination Impact
r 0.656 0.466 0.61 0.478 0.536 0.637
Organizational
learning 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
R R2 P
Predictor, V
Model 1 2
incorporation 0.465 0.416 P= 0.645 T=8.306 P=0.001
competence | 0.671 0.451 P= 0.443 T=3.986 P=0.001 P= 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 (P=0.645) Competence (P=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
T df Sig (2-tailed) Male Mean 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 2.69643
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
T df Sig (2-tailed) Manager Mean Employees Mean difference
Empowerment 1.261 94 0.210 61.94 55.97 5.96649
Organizational learning 0.151 87 0.880 63.87 64.70 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., &Schon, D. A. (1996).Organizational laaacicg II: thcoay, mcthoP acPpaastisc. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., &Schon, D., (1978). Organizational Icaacicg: A thcoay of action pcaspcstivc. 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. Cypaiot
Journal Of Educational dsiccscs, 6(1), 2-12.
Auh, S., &Mengue, B. (2005).Balancing exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of competitive intensity.Journal of Busincss Rcscaash, 58, 1652-1661.
Baker, C.M., McDaniel, A.M., Fredricson, K.C., & Gallegos, E.C. (2007). Empowerment among Latina nurses in Mexico, New York and Indiana. Ict/rcatiocalNursing Review, 54(2) 124-129.
Barney, J.B. (1991). Organization resources and sustained competitive advantage.,Journal of Macag/m/ct, 1, 99- 120.
Breaugh, J.A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy..Humac R/latiocs, 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 Macag/m/ct, 25, 478-495.
Davis, K., &Newstrom, J.W. (1989)Humac b/haviour at work: orgacizatiocal b/havioua. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Conger, J.A., &Kanungo, R.N. (1988).The Empowerment Process Integrating Theory and Practice..hcad/my of Macag/m/ct R/vi/w, 13(3), 471482.
Cyert, R.M., &March, J.G. (1963)..B/havioural th/ory of th/ firm. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Denton, David. W. &Kleiman, Lawrence.S. (2001).Job tenure as a moderator of the relationship between autonomy and satisfactionAppli/d of H.R.M. R/s/arah, 6(2), 105-114.
Dimovski, V., (1994).Orgacizatiocal l/arcicg acd aomp/titiv/ advactag/. 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 Voaatiocal B/haviour, 72(1), 81-94.
Gist, M.E., &Mitchell, R.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability .hcad/my of Macag/m/ct R/vi/w, 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. Appli/dNursicg R/s/arah, 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. Th/L/ad/rship Quart/rly, 20(3), 371-382.
Hong, J. (1999). Structuring for organizational learning.Th/ l/arcicg orgacizatioc, 6(4), 173-185.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing process and the literatures. Orgacizatioc sai/ca/, 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 companiesJourcal ofKor/ac Aaaa/mia doai/ty of Hospitality Admicistratioc, 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 Appli/dPsyahology, 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-Jourcal of Orgacizatiocal L/arcicg acd L/ad/rship, 8(1), 62-75.
Moye, Meldina J., &Henkin, Alane B. (2005). Teacher- principal relationships: Exploring linkages Between Empowerment & Interpersonal Trust. Journal of Eduaatiocal Admicistratioc, 43(3), 260-277.
Moye, Meldina.J.,&Henkin, Alane.B. (2006). Exploring Association between Employee Empowerment & Interpersonal Trust In Managers. Journal of Macag/m/ct D/v/lopm/ct, 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. Amd/my of Macag/m/ct Journal, 37, 580-607.
Senge, P. M. (1990). Th/ fifth disaiplic/: th/ art acdpraatia/ of l/arcicg orgacizatioc. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Sharifirad, Mohammad Sadegh. (2010). Relationship between knowledge inertia and organizational learning.Ict/rcatiocal .Journal of icformatioc T/ahcology acdKcowl/dg/ macag/m/ct, 2(2), 323-327.
Sprietzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in The Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. Add/my of Macag/m/ct 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 Macag/m/ct, 23(5), 679-704.
Thomas, K.W.,&Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An Interpretive Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Aaaaamy of Macag/m/ct R/vi/w, 15(4), 666-681.
Thurbin, P.J. (1994). Impl/m/cticg th/ l/arcicg orgacizatioc: th/ 07"1 daysprogramm/. 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 diss/rtatioc submitt/d ic partial fulfilm/ct of th/ r/quir/m/cts for th/ d/gr^ of Doator of Philosophy at G/org/ Masoc Uciv/rsity.
