Workplace empowerment and organizational effectiveness: an empirical investigation of Indian banking sector.
Sharma, Manoj ; Kaur, Gurvinder
INTRODUCTION
The tenacity of the Human Relations movement led the zealous
practitioners to incorporate all strategies that would 'bring out
the best in their human resources'. The strategies were given
diverse names and forms; industrial democracy, workers'
participation in management etc. The anticipated results, of course,
were more productive and efficient workforce that was capable of taking
decisions and hence reduce or even eliminate completely the need for
supervision making the prospect of 'flat, lean, mean'
organizations seem real and approachable. While the efficacy of such
strategies has been and still remains a matter of hectic discussion, the
concept of Employee Empowerment has recently aroused the interest of
many. Since the concept is relatively new, a universal definition has
yet to emerge, yet its implementers have reported a sense of
satisfaction on the gains accrued at individual as well as
organizational fronts. The paper has examined the impact of empowerment
antecedents on the perceived levels of psychological empowerment and the
resultant effects on organizational effectiveness that has been assessed
using the competing values framework. We would first discuss briefly the
two concepts building their theoretical framework. A brief look at some
studies on empowerment and organizational effectiveness would follow.
The rest of the sections would deal with the methodology, results,
analysis and discussions and lastly conclusion with the research
implications.
PERSPECTIVES OF EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT
The present literature on empowerment shows two clear perspectives.
One, introduced first by Conger and Kanungo (1988), carried further by
Thomas and Velthouse (1990), concretized by Spreitzer (1995) has come to
be known as the psychological perspective. As the term signifies, the
concept of empowerment has been discussed as a motivational and a
relational construct that had its roots in Bandura's
'self-efficacy' as proposed by Conger and Kanungo. The
'intrinsic task motivation' as termed by Thomas and Velthouse
was investigated and researched further by Spreitzer in the Empowerment
cognitions, viz. Meaning, Competence, Self-determination and Impact. The
Meaning dimension reflects the degree of fit between an employees values
and beliefs and job requirements. Competence reflects confidence in
one's ability to perform a job well. Self-determination reflects
feelings of personal control over the job. Impact describes feelings of
being able to influence major decisions in an organization.
Menon (1996) introduced the psychological construct of empowerment
in terms of perceived control, perceived competence and goal
internalization. Perceived control includes beliefs about authority,
decision-making, latitude and availability of resources, autonomy in
scheduling, etc. The second dimension of perceived competence reflects
role mastery that in addition to successful completion of assigned tasks
also requires coping up with the non-routine tasks. The goal
internalization dimension captures the energizing property of a worthy
cause or exciting vision provided by the organization leadership.
This perspective has been the basis of many studies that sought to
determine the empowerment levels in the employees in diverse
organizations. A few measures were also developed to measure the levels
of empowerment as perceived by the employees themselves; Worker
Empowerment Scale (WES) by Leslie, 1998; leader Empowering Behaviour
Questionnaire (LEBQ) by Konczack, 2000; Employee Empowerment
Questionnaire (EEQ) by Cloete, et al (2002). The Spreitzer measures have
been found to be adequate for studying a sense of empowerment as these
have been tested by many and in different samples. These have also been
tested on the reliability, convergent and discriminant validity and
content validity.
Though the psychological perspective provides a very useful insight
into the cognitive nature of empowerment yet it is very individual
centric. While the role of organizations has been discussed in creating
conditions for empowerment, it remains passive ... to say the least.
The structural perspective has its roots in Kanter's theory of
power. According to Kanter (1982), formal and informal systemic
structures are the sources of workplace empowerment. Job discretion,
recognition and relevance to organizational goals are the important
dimensions of formal power. High levels of job discretion ensure that
the work is non-routinized and permits flexibility, adaptation and
creativity. Recognition reflects visibility of employee accomplishments
among peers and supervisors. Finally, relevance of job responsibilities
and accomplishments to the organization's key strategic plans is
also important. Another key systemic structure is informal power, which
comes from the employees' network of interpersonal alliances or
relationships within and outside the organization. One of the key
outcomes of the structural approach has been the identification of those
pre-requisites that facilitate and encourage empowerment efforts. These
can be termed empowerment antecedents. The most cited antecedents are:
* Information and Communication Resources: Kanter (1977) suggested
that in order to be empowering, organizations must make more information
available to more people at more levels through more devices.
* Rewards and Incentives: Individual performance based rewards are
found to be important for empowerment because a) these recognize and
re-inforce personal competencies and b) provide individuals with
incentives for participating in the decision making processes and
impacting them.
* Autonomy: It may be defined as the degree to which one may take
significant decisions without the consent of others.
* Skills and Knowledge: Employees armed with the right knowledge
and skills report a host of indirect economic benefits in addition to
the direct ones. The indirect economic benefits like the better
teamwork, better coping up with changes at the work place etc. promote a
creative, empowered employee.
* Self-esteem and Locus of Control: Spreitzer (1995) also included
these two variables as important personality traits as antecedents to
empowerment. Self-esteem is defined as general feeling of self- worth.
Individuals who hold themselves in high self-esteem are more likely to
see themselves as active participants in the work context than those who
have a low self-esteem. Locus of control explains the degree to which
people believe that they rather than their external influences are in a
position to influence the work context. Individuals with an internal
locus of control regarding life in general are more likely to feel
capable of shaping their work environments and hence to feel empowered.
This increasing interest in the prerequisites of empowerment has
brought the role of the organization to the forefront in facilitating
empowerment. No longer can empowerment be viewed as a functional style,
which needs to be carried out by the supervisors only. The entire
organizational system needs to gear itself up to facilitate the
empowerment process in terms of introducing policies and procedures that
make the task of implementing the empowerment programmes less arduous
and complex.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: APPROACHES AND INDICATORS
The concept of effectiveness is filled with obstacles regarding
assessment namely criteria problems, criteria choices, and unique
attributes of organizations involved (Verma and Jain 1999). This
probably led Campbell to remark-"Since an organization can be
effective or ineffective on a number of different facets that may be
relatively independent of each other, organizational effectiveness has
no universal definition." (Campbell, 1977).
The present literature on organizational effectiveness broadly
discusses the following major approaches:
(i) Goal Attainment Model
By definition an organization is created deliberately to achieve
one or more specified goals. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
Goal Attainment Model is the most widely used model. Cost-Benefit
analysis, MBO, etc are examples of the goal attainment approach.
Followers of this approach usually cite productivity, efficiency,
profitability etc. as indicators of effectiveness However, defining
goals is beset with its own problems like multiple goals,
incompatibility of short- term vs. long- term goals, social
responsibility vs. profitability, etc. are factors that hamper the
feasibility of this model further.
(ii) Systems Model
It has been argued that defining Organizational Effectiveness (OE)
solely in terms of goal attainment results only in partial measurement
of OE.Goals focus on outputs. But an organization should also be judged
on its ability to acquire inputs, process these inputs, channel the
outputs and maintain stability and balance. Another way to look at OE,
therefore, is through the systems approach.
Systems models emphasize criteria that will increase the long- term
survival of the organization, such as the organization's ability to
acquire resources, maintain itself internally as a social organism, and
interact successfully with its external environment. So, the systems
approach focuses not so much on the specific ends as the means needed
for the achievement of those ends. Thus, to assess OE one should try to
find out whether an organization is internally consistent, whether its
resources are being judiciously distributed over a variety of coping
mechanisms, whether it is using up its resources faster than it should
and so on. The systems approach has found expression in a number of
models like OD model, ISR-Likert model, etc.
(iii) The Strategic Constituencies Model
This approach proposes that an effective organization is one that
satisfies the demand of those constituencies in its environment from
whom it requires support for its continued existence. This is similar to
the systems view, except that it is not concerned with the
organization's entire environment. It is concerned only with those,
which can threaten the organization's survival. This approach views
organizations as political areas where vested interests compete for
control over resources. In such a context, organization effectiveness
becomes an assessment of how successful the organization becomes at
satisfying those critical constituencies upon which the future survival
of the organization depends.
(iv) Competing Values Model
In order to have a comprehensive understanding of OE, it is
necessary to identify all the key variables in the domain of
effectiveness and then determine how the variables are related. The
competing values approach offers such an integrative framework. The main
theme underlying the competing values approach is that the criteria we
value and use in assessing an organization's effectiveness-return
on investment, market share, new product innovation, job security-depend
on who we are and the interests we represent. It is not surprising that
the stockholders, unions, suppliers, management or internal specialists
in marketing, personnel, production or accounting may be looking at the
same organization but evaluate its effectiveness entirely in a different
way.
Competing values approach acknowledges these diverse preferences.
It also assumes that these diverse preferences can be consolidated and
organized. There are common elements underlying any comprehensive list
of OE criteria and these elements can be combined in such a way as to
create a set of competing values.
Research studies on organizational effectiveness have used a number
of indicators that can be broadly classified as
* Objective indicators-profit, production rate, etc. proposed by
Bidani and Mitra, George (as quoted by Sayeed, 1992).
* Subjective indicators-employee satisfaction, quality of work
life, lob satisfaction, organizational climate etc. Ghosh & Ghosh,
Khandwalla and Jain. (Sayeed 1992).
* Social Indicators-contribution to society, development of
infrastructure, etc. Hage (Sayeed 1992).
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND OBJECTIVES
The variables were taken up for studying the construct of
structural empowerment are have been identified after a careful review
of literature. These are defined as below:
1. Locus of Control: A personality trait that explains the degree
to which people believe that they rather than the external forces,
determine what happens in their lives. It can be internal as well as
external (Spreitzer 1995).
2. Self Esteem : A general feeling of self- worth. It is assumed
that it is positively related to empowerment. (Spreitzer 1995)
3. Role Clarity : This dimension measures the extent to which
he/she is aware of role responsibilities and extent of authority
4. Autonomy : This implies the freedom to carry out the jobs and to
take job related decisions without the need for supervision. (Hackman
and Oldham 1976).
5. Information & Communication: Access to information and the
kind and degree of communication is related to empowerment. Two types of
information are critical for empowerment-information about an
organization's mission and purpose and second, information about
performance. Also, regular communication regarding organization's
plans as well as suggestions from employees also serve to increase a
sense of empowerment. (Lawler, 1992; Zollers and Callahan, 2003).
6. Reward System: The organization's reward system that
recognizes individual contribution rather than group performance.
7. Climate: Overall environment in the organization in terms of
respect for meritorious employees, respect for knowledge, trust among
superior and subordinates, open, frank and honest relations between
departments and employees are the signs of an empowerment friendly
climate in the organization.
8. Skills and Knowledge: Efforts that the organization takes to
upgrade the skills and knowledge of the employees, support for
individual efforts made by the employees themselves as well as
appreciation for creative and innovative behaviour comprise this
dimension
Psychological empowerment, as discussed earlier, represents
cognitions that are shaped by the work environment. Hence, it can be
conceived as a construct that is represented by the following:
1. Meaning: Value of a work goal or purpose judged in relation to
an individual's own ideals or standards. Meaning involves a fit
between requirements of a work role and beliefs values, and behaviour.
(Spreitzer, 1995)
2. Competence: Competence is an individual's belief in his or
her capability to perform activities with skill.. (Spreitzer, 1995)
3. Self-determination : This is an individual sense of having
choice in initiating and regulating behaviour. (Spreitzer, 1995)
4. Impact: The extent to which an individual can influence
strategic, administrative or operating outcomes at work. (Spreitzer,
1995).
In this paper, an endeavour has been made to measure organizational
effectiveness through the Competing Values Approach (CVA). This approach
reduces all the criteria of effectiveness into four broad discernible
areas. These areas are defined below (Quinn and Rohr Baugh, 1983):
1. 1.Rational Goal Model: It places a great deal of emphasis on
external focus and would lay stress on planning, goal setting,
productivity and efficiency.
2. Internal Process Model: It lays emphasis on control and internal
focus. It stresses on the role of information management and
communication as means. Stability and control represent the ends.
3. 3.Open Systems model: The focus of the open systems model is
flexibility and external orientation. It emphasizes readiness, growth,
resource acquisition and external support.
4. Human Relations Model: this places a great deal of emphasis on
flexibility and internal focus and stresses criteria such as cohesion
and morale to achieve human resource development.
The above discussion can be consolidated in the following figure:
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
HYPOTHESES
H1: There exists a positive relationship between Structural
Empowerment and Psychological Empowerment.
H2: There exists a positive relationship between Structural
Empowerment and Organizational Effectiveness.
H3: There exists a positive relationship between Psychological
Empowerment and Organizational Effectiveness.
H4: The ownership pattern affects the perception of employees
regarding empowerment levels.
METHODOLOGY
The sample was drawn from public and private sector banks located
across the states in Northern parts of India. As many as 400 employees
from public and private sector banks were contacted by the interviewed
to collect their responses. Random stratified sampling was adopted and
employees were taken from branches spread across ten cities of North
India. Three questionnaires were used. First questionnaire contained
statements pertaining to the existence of conditions conducive to
empowerment in the organization as well as personality attributes. This
was self-designed and yielded a Cronbach alpha of 0.96 that shows high
reliability. The second questionnaire is also popularly known as
Spreitzer measure or PEQ, which assesses the levels of empowerment as
perceived by the employees in relation to their own selves. As this
measure is widely used, there was no need to test its reliability. The
third questionnaire contained statements on the employees'
perception regarding effectiveness of the organization. The Competing
Values Framework was the basis of the statements. The reliability
measure of Cronbach alpha was 0.94 that is demonstrative of high
reliability.
RESULTS
If we examine the descriptive statistics given in Table1, the
employees of the public sector banks are reporting highest levels of
conditions that facilitate empowerment. (M=4.21, SD=0.39).
Well-established systems, a long history of banking operations leading
to a better understanding of the business requirements and hence a
better organizational design could be the reasons that can be cited to
support the above. The private sector banks that tried to match the
reach of the public sector banks by being techno-savvy reported lower
levels of empowering conditions than public sector banks.(M=4.03,
SD=0.44).
Psychological empowerment, as discussed earlier, is an outcome of
structural empowerment. More conducive the employees perceive the
organizational design to be among other factors; higher would be the
levels of perceived psychological empowerment. Table 2 amply
demonstrates this relationship. The employees of the public sector banks
perceive themselves to be more empowered (M=4.34, SD=0.42) than the
private sector bank employees. (M=4.32, SD=0.49)
The perception regarding organizational effectiveness also varies
with the perception regarding levels of empowerment. The employees of
the public sector banks perceive their organizations to be more
effective (M=4.05, SD=.53) than the employees of the private sector
banks.(M=4.02, SD=.54).While the public sector bank employees pay a
stronger emphasis on the rational goal model as a component of
organizational effectiveness, the private sector bank employees regard
the human relations as a stronger indicator of the same.
The correlation provides a test of association between two
variables without the influence of other variables. Table 4 gives us the
correlation figures between structural empowerment and organizational
effectiveness. The correlation between structural empowerment and
organizational effectiveness is higher for the employees of the public
sector banks(r=0.71, p<.01) than the private sector banks (r=0.67,
p<.01). In the case of both these sectors the correlation is highest
between the organization centric factors and all the four components of
organizational effectiveness. However, if we examine the individual
components then for the public sector banks skills and knowledge(r=0.73,
p<. 01) and for the private sector banks reward system (r=.63,
p<.01) are most highly correlated with organizational effectiveness.
The correlations between psychological empowerment and
organizational effectiveness are depicted in Table 5.Again, a high
correlation is seen between the perceived levels of psychological
empowerment and organizational effectiveness(r=0.54, p<.01; r=0.53,
p<.01) for public and private sectors respectively).Among the
individual components the highest correlation is observed between self-
determination and organizational effectiveness (r=0.51, p<.01;
r=0.48, p<.01 for public and private sectors respectively).
The intra bank observation given in Table 6 reveals that the
variable emerging as the strongest predictor in the public sector banks
is Information and Communication with beta value of 0.865 accounting for
74.7% of the variance ([R.sup.2] =0.747). It is followed closely by
Autonomy ([beta]=0.757, [R.sup.2]=0.733). The other variables in
decreasing order of impact are Locus of Control ([beta]=0.782), Climate
([beta]=0.749), Self Esteem ([beta]=0.743), Skills and Knowledge
([beta]=0.732) and Role Clarity ([beta]=0.667). It is interesting to
note that Role Clarity that has the weakest beta value is still capable
of accounting for 44.2% of the variance.
Structural Empowerment in the Private Sector banks is seen to be
affected most again by Information and Communication with beta value of
0.898.The R square value of 0.806 implies that this variable alone can
explain 80.6% of the variance in the structural empowerment.
An analysis of the Table 7 reveals that self-determination is the
strongest predictor of psychological empowerment both in public as well
as private sector banks and its magnitude is higher in the private
sector banks ([beta]=0. 87, t(1,198)=24.32, p<.01) than the public
sector banks(([beta]=0.86, t(1,198)=23.59, p<.01).This variable can
explain variance of almost 75% in the psychological empowerment levels
of the private sector employees ([R.sup.2]=.75, F(1,198)=591.81). The
corresponding figure for the public sector employees is
74%([R.sup.2]=.74, F(1,198)=556.68)
The internal process component emerges as the strongest variable
capable of explaining maximum variance in the construct of
organizational effectiveness both for public as well as private sector
banks ([beta]=0.95, t(1,198)=42.07, p<.01) and ([beta]=0.91,
t(1,198)=31.18, p<.01). Internal process also explained a significant
proportion of variance (89% and 83% respectively for public and private
sector banks). Table 8 depicts regression estimates of all the
components of organizational effectiveness.
Table 9 depicts the regression estimates of organizational
effectiveness in terms of all the variables of structural and
psychological empowerment. Skills and Knowledge significantly predicted
organizational effectiveness scores for the public sector banks.
([beta]=0.73, t (1,198)=15.32, p<.01). The corresponding variable for
the private sector banks was reward system. ([beta]=..63,t
(1,198)=11.32, p<.01). Both these variables were capable of
explaining 54% and 39% of the variance in organizational effectiveness
as depicted by the respective [R.sup.2] values
Chi-square analysis was carried out to examine whether the
perceptions regarding empowerment vary due to ownership patterns. Three
degrees of empowerment were defined Low (mean less than 2.5), Moderate
(mean from 2.5 to 3.5), High (mean more than 3.5). It can be observed
that out of the individual psychological attributes, self- esteem
reported significant results i.e., it differed by ownership pattern
([chi square]2, N=400)=13.66, p=.01. The job centric factors that
contain role clarity and autonomy also reported significant results.
([chi square]2, N=400)=14.41, p=.01. Among the organization centric
factors climate (([chi square]2, N=400)=7.35, p=.01 and skills and
knowledge([chi square]2, N=400)=9.82, p=.01 differed on account of
ownership pattern. Overall psychological empowerment also exhibited
significant results ([chi square]2, N=400)=4.17, p=.05. Only Competence
differed on account of ownership pattern amongst all the components of
psychological empowerment ([chi square]2, N=400)=22.16, p=.01
DISCUSSION
It is evident from the above results that the hypothesized
structural empowerment has a positive impact on the levels of
psychological empowerment as perceived by the employees of the banks.
This has been supported by a few studies undertaken earlier (Laschinger,
et al 2000; Knol, Jeanette & Roland van, 2009; Meyersen, Shauna
& Kline Theresa, 2008). This implies that the organizations can no
longer sit back and concentrate merely on assessing empowerment levels.
It is important that organizations create conditions that facilitate and
heighten the sense of 'being empowered'. A very high degree of
correlation between the four components of psychological empowerment and
all the empowerment antecedents (structural empowerment) is also
indicative of this positive relationship.
Organizational effectiveness has been taken as a dependant variable
in the study that is contingent on the perception of presence of
enabling conditions i.e. empowerment antecedents. It is also dependant
on the levels of empowerment as perceived by the employees themselves.
The above results demonstrate this relationship too. (Spreitzer 1996).
It is pertinent to note that all the three constructs are being
predicted significantly by their individual components as well as by the
other constructs and their components, e.g. information and
communication that is predicting a significant proportion of structural
empowerment levels is also a very strong predictor of organizational
effectiveness though not the strongest. In fact none of the variables
under study is statistically non significant. This itself is indicative
of a very strong relationship between all the three constructs.
The results drawn from the present study indicate that the
antecedents and the cognitions are important controllable elements in
the workplace context. As the data suggests, the abovementioned
antecedents and cognitions become a positive factor in influencing
empowerment in organization. When certain aspects present in the
organizational design as well as processes are perceived as capable of
fulfilling aspirations and desires, the employees will experience being
empowered. Organizations concerned with developing high levels of
employee empowerment need to focus their attention on providing a lot of
opportunities regarding these antecedents.
The study also attempted to highlight the importance of measuring
the perceived level of empowerment through four cognitions, namely,
meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. The perceived levels
of these cognitions can give a fair idea about the efforts required in
this direction to the policy makers and ambitious implementers of the
empowerment programmes.
Many studies have been carried out on empowerment. However, only a
limited number of these have taken organizational model as a whole. Only
a few indicators at best have been taken to represent only a partial
picture. The study has used the competing values approach to measure the
perceived levels of organizational effectiveness, which has not been
done in the banking sector in India and probably in any other
non-western setting.
CONCLUSION
This study has tried to fill the gap created by lack of empirical
studies linking structural empowerment to psychological empowerment as
has been noted by a few other authors (Ahearne et al., 2005; Spreitzer,
2007). Also, there is little research guidance to help researchers
select those socio-structural practices that have the potential to
generate expected psychological and behavioral outcomes.
Another area where this study becomes very relevant is the
investigation of the effects of both kinds of empowerments with
organizational effectiveness. Infact, despite best of efforts we could
not trace a single empirical study that researched the effect of
empowerment on organizational effectiveness via the competing values
approach. Hence, there is scope for further investigation.
REFERENCES
Ahearne M, Mathieu J, and Rapp A (2005). To empower or not to
empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of
leadership empowerment behaviour on customer satisfaction and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 90: 945-55
Bowen, D. E. and Lawler, E. (1992). 'The empowerment of
service workers: What, why, how and when?' Sloan Management Review,
33(3): 31-9
Campbell, John O. (1977). On the Nature of Organizational
Effectiveness. New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, Eds.
P.S Goodman and J.M Pennings. San Francisco. Jossey Bass. Pp 13-55
Cloete, Vanessa. J, Crous, F & Schepers, J. M (2002). The
construction and evaluation of a scale of Employee Empowerment. South
African Journal of Industrial Psychology. 28(2) pp 31-36
Conger & Kanungo (1988) 'The empowerment process;
Integrating theory and practice.' The Academy of Management Review,
Pp 471-482
Dimitridias, Zoe (2005). 'Employee Empowerment in the Greek
Context'. International Journal of Manpower, 26(1). Pp80-92
Hackman, J.R and Oldham, G.R (1980). 'Motivation through
Design of Work: Test of a theory 'Organizational Behaviour and
Human Performance. (16) Pp.256
Hall, H. Richards.(1991). Organizational Structures, Processes, and
Outcomes.' Fifth Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International,
Inc.
Joshi & Joshi (2009). Managing Indian Banks. Response Books.
New Delhi.
Knol, Jeanette & Roland van (2009) 'Innovative Behaviour:
Effect of Structural and Psychological Empowerment on Nurses'.
Journal of Advanced Nursing.65 (2) 359-370.
Konczak, L. J. et al (2000) 'Defining and Measuring Empowering
Leader Behaviour: Development of an Upward Feedback Mechanism'
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60 (2) Pp 301-313.
Kumar, Sunil & Gulati, Rachita (2010) 'Measuring
Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance of Indian Public Sector
Banks.' International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management. 59(1). Pp 57-74.
Laschinger, Heather K. Spence, Joan Finegan, Judith Shamian, and
Piotr Wilk (2001)."Impact of Structural and Psychological
Empowerment on Job Strain in Nursing Work Settings: Expanding
Kanter's Model." The Journal of Nursing Administration 31(5):
260-272.
Likert, R. (1961). "New patterns of management". McGraw
Hill, New York.
Leslie, Donald R., Carol M. Holzhalb, and Thomas P. Holland (1998).
"Measuring Staff Empowerment: Development of a Worker Empowerment
Scale." Research on Social Work Practice 8(2): 212-222.
Menon, Sanjay, T (1996) 'Employee empowerment: Definition,
measurement and construct validation.' Dissertation Abstract
International. 57 (4) October. p1732.
Meyersen, Shauna & Kline Theresa (2008).'Psychological and
Environmental Empowerment: antecedents and consequences'.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal .29 (5) Pp.444-460
Ozaralli, N (2003). 'Effects of Transformational Leader on
Empowerment and Team Efforts'. Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal. 24(5/6), Pp.335-344
Pethe and Menon (2003). Organizational Antecedents and Outcomes of
Empowerment; Evidence from India. Paper presented at the 8th bi-annual
conference of the International Society for the Study of Work and
Organizational Values (ISSWOV), Warsaw, Poland. Proceedings 289-293
Quinn, R. E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of
Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to
Organization Analysis Management Science, 29Pp: 363-377.
Rosa Beth Moss Kanter, (1982) "Dilemmas of Managing
Participation," Organizational Dynamics, p.23
Sayeed, Omar Bin (1992). Organizational Effectiveness: Relationship
with Job Satisfaction Facets. Productivity 33 (3). Pp 422-429.
Spreitzer, M. Gretchen, (1995) 'Psychological Empowerment in
Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement and Validation.' Academy of
Management Journal. 38(5). Pp 1442-1465
Spreitzer, G.M (1996) 'Social structural characteristics of
psychological empowerment'. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (2),
483-504.
Spreitzer, G.M (2007) Taking stock: A review of more than twenty
years of research on empowerment at work. In: Barling J and Cooper C
(eds). The Handbook of Organizational Behaviour, Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE, 54-72
Srinivasan, R (2009). HRD Practices in the Banking Sector-Need for
Effective Administration. Retrieved 2 March, 2010, from
http://www.articlesbase.com/
human-resources-articles/hrd-practices-in-banking-sector
Thomas & Velthouse (1990) 'Cognitive elements of
empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation.'
Academy of Management
Verma, D.P.S and Kamlesh Jain. (1999) "Influence of Leadership
Style on Organizational Effectiveness: A Study of Indian Managers."
Abhigyan. Pp. 27-34
Zollers, F.E. and Callahan, E.S (2003). "Workplace Violence
and Security: Are there lessons for Peacemaking? Syracuse University
School of Management.
Manoj Sharma, Punjab University
Gurvinder Kaur, Thapar University
Table 1
Structural Empowerment- Total and Components
Variables Public Sector Private Sector
Mean SD Mean SD
Individual Psychological Attributes 4.20 .38 4.08 .51
Locus of Control 4.10 .46 4.06 .54
Self Esteem 4.30 .43 4.10 .57
Job centric factors 4.28 .38 4.02 .43
Role Clarity 4.38 .42 4.16 .53
Autonomy 4.18 .46 3.88 .41
Organization centric factors 4.16 .43 3.99 .46
Information and communication 4.18 .45 4.12 .54
Reward System 4.06 .57 4.08 .52
Climate 4.25 .49 4.07 .60
Skills and Knowledge 4.14 .56 3.99 .46
Structural Empowerment 4.21 .36 4.03 .44
Table 2
Psychological Empowerment: Total and Components
Variables Public Sector Private Sector
Mean SD Mean SD
Psychological Empowerment 4.34 .42 4.32 .49
Meaning 4.62 .47 4.50 .54
Competence 4.52 .40 4.35 .62
Self Determination 4.14 .66 4.22 .66
Impact 4.10 .74 4.22 .63
Table 3
Organizational Effectiveness: Total and Components
Variables Public Sector Private Sector
Mean S.D Mean S.D
Human Relations 4.00 0.61 4.04 0.55
Rational Goal Model 4.11 0.62 4.02 0.60
Internal Process Model 4.03 0.61 3.96 0.60
Open Systems 4.07 0.59 3.98 0.63
Organizational Effectiveness 4.05 0.56 4.02 0.53
Table 4
* Pearson's correlation coefficients for Structural Empowerment and
Organizational Effectiveness--Total and components
Variables Human Rational Goal
Relations model
Pub Pvt. Pub. Pvt.
Individual Psychological Attributes .51 .58 .52 .49
Locus of Control .49 .56 .44 .48
Self Esteem .37 .51 .44 .41
Job centric factors .49 .54 .55 .51
Role Clarity .26 .49 .37 .45
Autonomy .58 .51 .56 .48
Organization centric factors .74 .65 .73 .55
Information and communication .59 .60 .62 .49
Reward System .72 .59 .64 .52
Climate .41 .58 .47 .49
Skills and Knowledge .74 .46 .69 .41
Structural Empowerment .66 .63 .67 .55
Variables Internal Open
Process Systems
Pub. Pvt. Pub. Pvt.
Individual Psychological Attributes .49 .61 .50 .57
Locus of Control .44 .56 .42 .52
Self Esteem .40 .59 .44 .51
Job centric factors .53 .55 .54 .51
Role Clarity .35 .50 .39 .46
Autonomy .55 .52 .52 .47
Organization centric factors .71 .61 .66 .57
Information and communication .61 .58 .59 .53
Reward System .65 .57 .59 .56
Climate .44 .55 .44 .51
Skills and Knowledge .68 .41 .58 .36
Structural Empowerment .65 .63 .63 .59
Variables Organizational
Effectiveness
Pub. Pvt.
Individual Psychological Attributes .55 .63
Locus of Control .49 .59
Self Esteem .45 .56
Job centric factors .58 .59
Role Clarity .37 .53
Autonomy .60 .55
Organization centric factors .78 .69
Information and communication .66 .62
Reward System .71 .63
Climate .48 .59
Skills and Knowledge .73 .46
Structural Empowerment .71 .67
(pub-public sector banks; pvt.-private sector banks) p<0.01
Table 5
* Pearson's correlation coefficients for Psychological Empowerment
and Organizational Effectiveness Total and components
Variables Human Relations Rational Goal model
Public Private Public Private
Sector Sector Sector Sector
PE .51 .47 .51 .41
Meaning .20 .41 .31 .36
Competence .51 .33 .44 .29
Self-Determination .48 .44 .42 .34
Impact .56 .35 .51 .33
Variables Internal Process Open Systems
Public Private Public Private
Sector Sector Sector Sector
PE .49 .49 .46 .51
Meaning .21 .39 .24 .36
Competence .24 .38 .23 .35
Self-Determination .49 .45 .45 .42
Impact .43 .36 .38 .42
Variables Organizational
Effectiveness
Public Private
Sector Sector
PE .54 .53
Meaning .26 .42
Competence .27 .38
Self-Determination .51 .48
Impact .47 .41
Table 6 Regression Estimates for Structural Empowerment
Variables Public sector Banks
[beta] ** t
Locus of Control 0.782 17.67
Self Esteem 0.743 15.68
Role Clarity 0.667 12.59
Autonomy 0.857 23.37
Information and Communication 0.865 24.24
Reward System 0.736 15.30
Climate 0.749 15.88
Skills and Knowledge 0.732 15.13
Variables Public sector Banks
[R.sup.2] F *
Locus of Control 0.610 312.54
Self Esteem 0.550 244.53
Role Clarity 0.442 158.63
Autonomy 0.733 546.18
Information and Communication 0.747 587.70
Reward System 0.539 234.13
Climate 0.558 252.28
Skills and Knowledge 0.534 229.15
Variables Private Sector Banks
[beta] ** t
Locus of Control 0.892 27.76
Self Esteem 0.835 21.34
Role Clarity 0.856 23.29
Autonomy 0.859 23.55
Information and Communication 0.898 28.87
Reward System 0.845 22.24
Climate 0.838 21.60
Skills and Knowledge 0.670 12.68
Variables Private Sector Banks
[R.sup.2] F *
Locus of Control 0.795 770.75
Self Esteem 0.696 455.74
Role Clarity 0.731 542.64
Autonomy 0.736 554.96
Information and Communication 0.806 828.27
Reward System 0.713 494.96
Climate 0.701 466.80
Skills and Knowledge 0.446 160.91
** all values significant at p<.01 * df=1,198
Table 7
Regression Estimates for Psychological Empowerment components
Predictor Variables for PE Public sector Banks
[beta] ** t
Meaning 0.571 9.80
Competence 0.701 13.83
Self-determination 0.859 23.59
Impact 0.795 18.43
Predictor Variables for PE Public sector Banks
[R.sup.2] F *
Meaning 0.323 96.03
Competence 0.491 191.35
Self-determination 0.736 556.68
Impact 0.630 339.79
Predictor Variables for PE Private Sector Banks
[beta] ** t
Meaning 0.737 15.36
Competence 0.828 20.81
Self-determination 0.866 24.32
Impact 0.781 17.60
Predictor Variables for PE Private Sector Banks
[R.sup.2] F *
Meaning 0.541 235.92
Competence 0.685 433.24
Self-determination 0.748 591.81
Impact 0.608 310.09
** all values significant at p<.01 * df=1,198
Table 8
Regression Estimates for Organizational Effectiveness components
Predictor Variables Public Sector Banks
for Organizational
Effectiveness
[beta] ** t [R.sup.2] F *
Human Relation System 0.917 32.24 0.839 1039.53
Rational Goal System 0.907 30.21 0.821 913.01
Internal Process 0.948 42.07 0.899 1770.64
Open System 0.899 28.92 0.808 836.60
Predictor Variables Private Sector Banks
for Organizational
Effectiveness
[beta] ** t [R.sup.2] F *
Human Relation System 0.903 29.63 0.815 878.38
Rational Goal System 0.873 25.13 0.760 631.53
Internal Process 0.912 31.18 0.830 972.50
Open System 0.883 26.50 0.779 702.23
** all values significant at p<.01, * df=1,198
Table 9
Regression Estimates for Organizational Effectiveness
Predictor variables Public sector Banks
for Organizational
Effectiveness.
[beta] ** t [R.sup.2] F *
Locus of Control 0.486 7.83 0.233 61.39
Self- Esteem 0.453 7.15 0.202 51.23
Role Clarity 0.375 5.68 0.136 32.32
Autonomy 0.603 10.64 0.361 113.35
Information and
Communication 0.656 12.22 0.427 149.35
Reward System 0.710 14.19 0.502 201.49
Climate 0.483 7.754 0.229 60.12
Skills and Knowledge 0.737 15.32 0.543 234.82
Meaning 0.264 3.86 0.065 14.87
Competence 0.268 3.92 0.067 15.34
Self-Determination 0.513 8.40 0.259 70.58
Impact 0.468 7.46 0.215 55.60
Predictor variables Private Sector Banks
for Organizational
Effectiveness.
[beta] ** t [R.sup.2] F *
Locus of Control 0.595 10.42 0.351 108.66
Self- Esteem 0.556 9.42 0.306 88.76
Role Clarity 0.530 8.80 0.278 77.48
Autonomy 0.555 9.39 0.305 88.31
Information and
Communication 0.618 11.06 0.379 122.52
Reward System 0.627 11.32 0.390 128.30
Climate 0.595 10.42 0.351 108.72
Skills and Knowledge 0.458 7.25 0.206 52.67
Meaning 0.424 6.58 0.175 43.28
Competence 0.380 5.78 0.140 33.44
Self-Determination 0.482 7.74 0.228 59.86
Impact 0.413 10.99 0.166 40.64
** all values significant at p<.01 * df=1,198
