Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace

  • Published:
American Journal of Community Psychology

Abstract

A comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace posits that empowerment mediates the relationship between the social structural context and behavioral outcomes. The social structural context is operationalized as perceptions of role ambiguity, sociopolitical support, access to strategic information and resources, and work unit culture, whereas behavioral outcomes are operationalized as innovativeness and effectiveness. The model is examined on a sample of 324 middle managers from different units of a Fortune 50 organization. Survey data are examined using a series of regression analyses to assess the mediating effect of intrapersonal. Results suggest that intrapersonal empowerment mediates the relationship between some elements of workplace social structure and innovativeness, but not effectiveness. Although not a mediating mechanism for effectiveness, intrapersonal empowerment is nonetheless directly related to effectiveness (as assessed by the respondent's subordinates). Implications of the results are discussed as are study limitations and directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aktouf, O. (1992). Management and theories of organizations in the 1990s: Toward a critical radical humanism.Academy of Management Review, 17, 407–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory.American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.),Handbook of career theory, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennis, W., A. Nanus, B. (1985).Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, P. (1987).The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, E. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1992, Spring). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how, and when.Sloan Management Review, 31–39.

  • Brief, A. P., & Nord, W. R. (1990).Meanings of occupational work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. L. (1990, June 18). Fearful of empowerment: Should managers be terrified?Industry Week.

  • Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development.American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice.Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.Psychological Bulletin, 52, 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crozier, M. (1964).The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (in press). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership.Organization Science.

  • Dopson, S., & Stewart, R. (1990). What is happening to middle management?British Journal of Management, 1, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1988, January–February). The coming of the new organization.Harvard Business Review.

  • Ettington, D. (1992).Successfully plateaued middle managers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

  • Evered, R. D., & Selman, J. C. (1989). Coaching and the art of management.Organizational Dynamics.

  • Felson, R. B. (1981). Ambiguity and bias in self-concept.Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 64–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, A. B. (1991, November 18). Morale crisis.Fortune, pp. 70–80.

  • Frey, R. (1993, September–October). Empowerment or else.Harvard Business Review, pp. 80–94.

  • Gist, M., & Mitchell, T. N. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability.Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980).Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. (1990, September–October). Values make the company: An interview with Robert Haas.Harvard Business Review, pp. 133–144.

  • Izraeli, E. (1975). The middle manager and the tactics of power expansion: A case study.Sloan Management Review, 16, 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, C. (1978). Empowerment movements and mental health: Locus of control and commitment to the United Farm Workers.Journal of Community Psychology, 6, 216–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. W., & Frohman, A. L. (1989). Identifying and closing the gap in the middle of organizations.Academy of Management Executive, 3, 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977).Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1983).The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1986, February). Empowering people to act on ideas.Executive Excellence, pp. 5–6.

  • Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978).The social psychology of organization. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective.Prevention in Human Services, 3, 9–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kizilos, P. (1990, December). Crazy about empowerment.Training, pp. 47–56.

  • Lawler, E. E. (1967). The multitrait-multirater approach to measuring managerial job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 369–381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E. E. (1992).The ultimate advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967).Organization and environment. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luthans, F. (1988). Successful versus effective real managers.Academy of Management Executive, 2, 127–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1982). Learned helplessness: An alternative explanation for performance deficits.Academy of Management Review, 7, 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1983).Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NH: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilson, E. H. (1986). Empowerment strategies: Balancing authority and responsibility. In S. Strivastva and Associates (Eds.),Executive power. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Reilly, B. (1992, January 28). Preparing for leaner times.Fortune, pp. 40–47.

  • Paulhus, D. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of perceived control.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1253–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A. & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context.American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prestby, J. E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Benefits, costs, incentive management and participation in voluntary organizations: A means to understanding and promoting empowerment.American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 117–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E. (1988).Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. In R. W. Pasmore and W. A. Pasmore (Eds.),Research in organizational change and development. Greenwich, CT: Jai.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention.American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 2–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory of community psychology.American Journal of Community Psychology 15, 121–148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level perspectives.Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, J. E. (1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural model of antecedents and consequences.Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 130–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P. (1975).Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis.Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G. M. (1992).When organizations dare: The dynamics of individual empowerment in the workplace. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G. M. (in press).Social structural levers for workplace empowerment. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Srivastva, S., & Cooperrider, D. L. (1986). The emergence of the egalitarian organization.Human Relations, 39, 683–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation.Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrington, D., & Weightman, J. (1987). Middle managerial work.Journal of General Management, 13, 74–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. A. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 64–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, J. F., & Murrell, K. L. (1990).Empowerment in organizations. San Diego: University Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanzi, A. (1987). How organic is your organization? Determinants of organic/mechanistic tendencies in a public accounting firm.Journal of Management Studies, 24, 125–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A. (1990a). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction between individual and psychological conceptions.American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 169–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A. (1990b). Toward a theory of learned hopefulness: A structural model analysis of participation and empowerment.Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A. (1990c). Empowerment: Forging new perspectives in mental health. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.),Handbook of community psychology, New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581–599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment.American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725–750.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A., & Zahniser, J. H. (1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures of perceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale.Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 189–204.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, University of Southern California, 90089-1421, Los Angeles, California

    Gretchen M. Spreitzer

Authors
  1. Gretchen M. Spreitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This paper is based on the author's dissertation, presented in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the doctoral degree at the University of Michigan. I am grateful to my dissertation committee which included Robert E. Quinn (chair), Susan Ashford, Richard Bagozzi, Karl Weick, and Marc Zimmerman for their thoughtful guidance. Thanks is also extended to Neil Sendelbach for his help in facilitating data collection. The University of Michigan and the University of Southern California both provided financial support for this research. This paper was prepared while the author was a Zumberge Fellow at the University of Southern California.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spreitzer, G.M. An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace. Am J Commun Psychol 23, 601–629 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506984

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506984

Key Words

Search

Navigation