Week 5 Article Summary

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2) 136 –148 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1938965512457240 http://cqx.sagepub.com

457240CQXXXX10.1177/1938965512457240 Cornell Hospitality QuarterlyRaub and Robert 2012

Service industry practitioners have come to view empower- ment as a way to improve operations and increase profit (Biron and Bamberger 2007, 2010; Lashley 1995, 1999; Meihem 2004; Rafiq and Ahmed 1998; Ueno 2008). Research has suggested that empowerment is associated with increased job satisfaction (Salazar, Pfaffenberg, and Salazar 2006) and reduced burnout (Yagil 2006). Moreover, service researchers have suggested that the ability of empow- ered employees to take initiative and make quicker decisions should result in faster online responses in the service deliv- ery process (Bowen and Lawler 1992, 1995; Hon and Chan, forthcoming). Hospitality research has found support for this contention and has suggested that hospitality organizations benefit from empowerment via increased service quality (Geralis and Terziovski 2003; Goodale and Koerner 1997; Ping, Murrmann, and Perdue 2010), improved service recov- ery (Carson and Carson 1998; Hocutt and Stone 1998; Sparks, Bradley, and Callan 1997), and ultimately, greater customer satisfaction (Bradley and Sparks 2000; Brymer 1991; Peccei and Rosenthal 2001; Yagil 2006; Yagil and Gal 2002).

Despite substantial evidence for the desirable effects of empowerment, two important questions have not been ade- quately addressed by existing research. First, what role should leaders play in empowering their subordinates? Second, what role do differences in cultural values play for successful empowerment in the context of a multinational hospitality organization?

With regard to the first question, empowerment research has long suggested that the informal exchange between leader and subordinate may be a more important determi- nant of empowerment than formal organizational practices (Conger and Kanungo 1988). As far as the role of cultural values is concerned, cross-cultural research has noted that management practices are often developed within particular

1Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Switzerland 2University of Missouri, Columbia, USA

Corresponding Author: Steffen Raub, Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Route de Cojonnex 18, 1000 Lausanne 25, Switzerland Email: [email protected]

Empowerment, Organizational Commitment, and Voice Behavior in the Hospitality Industry: Evidence from a Multinational Sample

Steffen Raub1 and Christopher Robert2

Abstract

Employee empowerment is widely viewed as a promising approach to improve operating efficiency and customer service. But the most effective way to empower the staff is not always clear to hospitality managers, both in terms of what to do and what to avoid. Using data from 640 frontline service employees and their supervisors working in sixteen different properties of a multinational hotel chain in the Middle East and the Asia Pacific region, this study tested a model of the relationships between empowering leadership, psychological empowerment, organizational commitment, and voice behavior. Results suggest that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and both organizational commitment and voice behavior (defined as identifying problems and suggesting improvements). The study also found a particular pitfall for empowerment in high power distance cultures, in that the effects are much weaker for high power distance cultures. As the value of empowering leadership seems clear, multinational companies may wish to select employees and managers who are comfortable with an empowerment strategy, and make clear to all employees— particularly those on the frontline—that the organization will support them as they take more initiative.

Keywords

empowering leadership; psychological empowerment; organizational commitment; organizational citizenship behavior; voice behavior; power distance

Focus on Human Resources

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Raub and Robert 137

cultural environments, and the effectiveness of these prac- tices depends on certain unstated assumptions about the values of managers and employees (e.g., Adler and Jelinek 1986; Hofstede 1993). In cultures where these assumptions do not hold, researchers find that management practices and theories are sometimes ineffective (e.g., Earley 1993; Kirkman and Shapiro 1997).

The hospitality industry, with its multicultural workforce (Iverson 2000), is a logical candidate for explicit consider- ation of cultural values in employee empowerment. Not sur- prisingly, numerous hospitality-related studies have proposed the importance of taking values into account for employee empowerment (Gill, Fitzgerald, et al. 2010; Humborstad et al. 2008; Jha and Nair 2006; Sutton, Verginis, and Ettvik 2003; Umashankar and Kulkarni 2002). Our objective is to examine the role of empowering leadership behaviors on organizational commitment and voice behavior, two out- comes of great importance in the hospitality industry. In addition, we investigate whether the relationship between empowering leadership behaviors and these two outcomes is mediated by psychological empowerment. Finally, we examine the impact of cultural values as moderators of empowerment.

Theory and Hypotheses Empowering Leader Behaviors and Psychological Empowerment

In general terms, empowerment can be defined as a collec- tion of practices that combine information sharing, delega- tion of authority, and increased employee autonomy (Blanchard, Carlos, and Randolph 1999; Randolph 1995, 2000) with an increased reliance on teams (Hon and Chan, forthcoming; Lawler 1986; Manz and Sims 1987, 1993; Randolph 1995). The promise of the empowerment approach is based on the notion that empowered employees require less direct supervision, thereby eliminating the need for multiple levels of hierarchy and allowing supervisors to focus on more strategic activities (Randolph 1995).

Research on empowerment is based on the fundamental assumption that empowerment cannot be imposed on employees, but instead they must feel “psychologically empowered” (Spreitzer 1995). Psychological empowerment has been defined as an individual’s active orientation to his or her work role (Spreitzer 1995; Thomas and Velthouse 1990). Spreitzer’s (1995, 1996) research has provided empirical support for the notion that psychological empow- erment can be seen as a single higher order construct com- posed of the following four dimensions. Meaning refers to the value an individual attributes to a work goal or purpose. Competence reflects the belief that one is capable of suc- cessfully carrying out a task (similar to Bandura’s 1977 notion of self-efficacy). Self-determination reflects a feeling

of autonomy or a sense of choice in initiating work actions. Finally, impact refers to the degree to which an individual believes that he or she can influence work outcomes.

For organizations, it is important to understand how the work environment fosters psychological empowerment, and we suggest that leaders can exert a decisive influence in this regard. This assumption is in line with initial conceptual mod- els of the empowerment process (e.g., Conger and Kanungo 1988), but, to the best of our knowledge, no study has explic- itly tested the notion that empowering leadership behaviors lead to desirable attitudinal and behavioral outcomes via psy- chological empowerment as a mediating mechanism.

Researchers have identified a number of leadership behav- iors that can be characterized as empowering (Arnold et al. 2000; Conger and Kanungo 1988), including leading by example, participative decision making, coaching, inform- ing, and showing concern. We suggest that these empower- ing leadership behaviors can enhance psychological empowerment in followers by influencing each of the four dimensions of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Hon and Chan, forthcoming; Spreitzer 1995).

Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) provide empirical support for the notion that leaders exert influence on subordinates’ sense of meaning by showing that leaders can alter follow- ers’ perceptions of the job, including dimensions that are related to the experienced meaningfulness of the job. Meaningful action involves activities that are perceived by the individual as (a) contributing to the achievement of a valuable goal and (b) affirming his or her connection to a community (Podolny, Khurana, and Hill-Popper 2005). The greater involvement of subordinates in decision making and the enhanced personal attention and concern for subordi- nates that are characteristic of empowering leadership should contribute to those two key perceptions.

Empowering leadership also has a substantial impact on employees’ competence by influencing followers’ percep- tions of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can be influenced by the direct experience of mastering a task, by observing others’ successful performance, or through praise and encouragement expressed by a superior (Bandura 1986). Greater involvement of subordinates in decision making and closer interaction with an empowering leader who models appropriate behaviors should provide subordinates with multiple opportunities for learning that will strengthen their self-efficacy.

Finally, empowering leadership can have a decisive impact on the experience of self-determination and impact. Again, higher levels of participation in decision making and closer interaction with an empowering leader should result in subordinates’ perception of enlarged decision influence (Scandura, Graen, and Novak 1986), thereby fostering an experience of self-determination. Moreover, it also signals to subordinates that they “count around here” (Pierce and Gardner 2004), thereby creating an experience of impact on organizational activities. Based on the preceding theoretical

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

138 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)

rationale, we expect that empowering leadership behaviors will be positively related to subordinates’ experience of psychological empowerment. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Empowering leadership is positively related to psychological empowerment.

Attitudinal and Behavioral Outcomes of Empowerment The cognitive perspective on empowerment implies that empowering behaviors enacted by leaders will result in desirable outcomes only when these behaviors result in heightened psychological empowerment. Hence, we propose that the influence of empowering leadership on work out- comes is mediated by employees’ psychological empower- ment. Moreover, we hypothesize that empowerment has both attitudinal and behavioral consequences, and we focus our study on two important work outcomes: organizational com- mitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the form of voice behavior, which has been defined as construc- tive, change-oriented comments intended to improve the organization.

Empowerment and organizational commitment. Job atti- tudes are believed to be important outcome measures not only because they reflect employee well-being but also by virtue of their relationship with other important outcomes such as turnover, job withdrawal (Hulin 1991; Tett and Meyer 1993), and job performance (Judge et al. 2001). From a practical viewpoint, our focus on organizational commitment is justified by the fact that it is a strong predic- tor of turnover intentions (Tett and Meyer 1993) and that empowerment may be associated with lower turnover (e.g., Gill, Mathur, et al. 2011).

Our theoretical argument for the relationship between empowering leadership and organizational commitment is supported by the notion of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960). Empowering leadership signals to individuals that their con- tributions are valued and that the organization cares for their well-being. Individuals are likely to reciprocate empowering leadership by exhibiting stronger identification with and commitment to the organization (Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe 2000). In addition, empowered individuals invest a substantial amount of psychological resources in their work (Spreitzer 1995; Thomas and Velthouse 1990). The feeling of being deeply involved with the organization and the sense of meaning derived from being psychologically empowered should result in strong commitment (Avolio et al. 2004). Moreover, Robert et al. (2000) note that organi- zational commitment will be higher in individuals who are sat- isfied with various aspects of the job, and we suggest that an increased sense of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact should engender that sense of satisfaction and

commitment. Therefore, we predict that psychological empowerment and organizational commitment will be pos- itively related. We also suggest that the positive relation- ship between empowering leadership and organizational commitment will be mediated by psychological empower- ment. Formally stated,

Hypothesis 2: Psychological empowerment is posi- tively related to organizational commitment and mediates the empowering leadership— organizational commitment relationship.

Empowerment and OCB. The relationship between empowerment and OCB has received relatively little atten- tion. OCB has been defined as discretionary behavior that is not formally recognized by organizational reward systems but promotes organizational effectiveness (Organ 1988). In this study, we focus on voice behavior as a form of OCB that is particularly relevant for the hospitality industry (Stamper and Van Dyne 2001).

Voice behavior occurs when individual employees per- ceive a problem that should be addressed. Importantly, the employees must be sufficiently motivated to say something about the problem, because pointing out such problems is not technically part of their job. The hospitality industry provides frequent opportunities to engage in voice behav- ior, and employees can suggest effective improvement mea- sures (Liao 2007; Liao and Chuang 2004; Stamper and Van Dyne 2001).

Voice behavior is worth studying because it can entail a challenge to the status quo (Van Dyne and LePine 1998). Voicing suggestions implies the risk of material or social losses for the individual and requires initiative and the will- ingness to accept these risks. Voice behavior stands in con- trast to more affiliative and therefore less controversial types of OCB, such as organizational compliance or helping behavior (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, et al. 2000). Our theoretical rationale for a positive relationship between empowerment and voice behavior builds on the inherently discretionary and risky nature of the latter. Under conditions of empowering leadership, employees are more strongly involved in goal setting and can exert greater influence on decision making. This should increase their perceptions of negotiating latitude, that is, the extent to which superiors permit subordinates to modify their tasks in line with their own preferences (Dansereau, Graen, and Haga 1975). Engaging in voice behavior will appear less risky when the perceived negotiation latitude is high. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Psychological empowerment is pos- itively related to voice behavior and mediates the empowering leadership—voice behavior relationship.

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Raub and Robert 139

The Role of Cultural Values Related to Power Distance

Cultural considerations frequently complicate the imple- mentation of empowerment, particularly in multinational hospitality firms (Randolph and Sashkin 2002). Numerous researchers have noted that the effectiveness of manage- ment practices often depends on unstated assumptions about the values of managers and employees (e.g., Adler and Jelinek 1986; Hofstede 1993) and that in different cul- tural contexts some practices can be ineffective and unsup- ported (e.g., Earley 1993; Kirkman and Shapiro 1997).

In the case of empowerment, evidence presented by Robert et al. (2000) suggests that the effects of empowerment might be strongly influenced by cultural values. Although other cultural value dimensions such as individualism- collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, or masculinity (Hofstede 1980) might influence the effectiveness of empowerment practices, the power distance dimension is the most theoreti- cally relevant. A clear parallel can be established between the concept of power distance and empowerment practices, as the former essentially asks whether information sharing and delegation of power and authority are appropriate. A better understanding of the possible moderating effect of cultural values such as power distance in the empowerment process is of particular importance for the hospitality industry. Hospitality managers are constantly confronted with the challenge of effectively managing a highly diverse work- force (Iverson 2000). Moreover, the international scope of the industry and its reliance on expatriate managers in their international operations (Kaye and Taylor 1997) leads to frequent encounters between managers and employees with different cultural backgrounds.

We hypothesize that empowering leadership will have a weaker influence on psychological empowerment among high power distance individuals. Empowered roles charac- terized by cognitions such as self-determination and impact might be rejected by high power distance individuals who are likely to believe they should adopt a more traditional, passive role that is appropriate to their lower level of sta- tus. In addition, when leaders encourage participation, show concern for employees, inform employees about the organization, or coach employees (Arnold et al. 2000), high power distance individuals might perceive such behaviors as inconsistent with the traditional role of a leader. Indeed, findings from the GLOBE study suggest that in high power distance societies, people tend to believe that effective leaders are those who make decisions auton- omously, and engage less in participative leadership (Carl, Gupta, and Javidan 2004). As a result, leaders who enact empowering behaviors might lose credibility and the respect of their high power distance employees. Formally stated,

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between empowering leadership and psychological empowerment is mod- erated by cultural values such that there is a weaker (positive) or a negative association for employees who score high on power-distance-related values.

We also hypothesize that power distance will moderate the relationship between psychological empowerment and both organizational commitment and voice behavior. We draw on the arguments of Hulin, Roznowski, and Hachiya (1985) and others who have suggested that job attitudes are formed by the comparison between the job conditions that individuals expect, and the job conditions that they perceive in their work environment. High power distance individuals might expect to occupy a less active work role in which they make few autonomous decisions, and have little direct impact on their work environment beyond what their boss asks them to do. However, if they find themselves occupying an empowered work role, their experience would not match their expectations of what their work role should be like, and this discrepancy adversely affects organizational commit- ment. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between psychologi- cal empowerment and organizational commitment is moderated by cultural values such that there is a weaker (positive) association for employees high on power-distance-related values.

We also predict that power distance will dampen the relationship between psychological empowerment and voice behavior. Unlike other OCBs like helping behaviors that are expected and normative, engagement in voice behavior might run counter to the behavioral norms that are consistent with high power distance values. Although a high power distance individual might feel psychologically empowered in his or her work role, he or she might believe it is not normative to actually enact behaviors that perhaps should be directly accomplished or ordered by supervisors. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between psychologi- cal empowerment and voice behavior is moderated by cultural values such that there is a weaker (posi- tive) association for employees high on power- distance-related values.

Method Sample

We obtained survey data from frontline service employees in sixteen properties of a large multinational hotel chain.

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

140 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)

Properties were located in twelve different countries in the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Oceania (see Exhibit 1). For each participating frontline employee, we asked the supervisor to complete a survey on the employee’s degree of engagement in voice behavior. Usable questionnaires with matching supervisor question- naires were obtained from 640 employees. The average age of these participants was 27.3 years (standard deviation [SD] = 5.3), 55 percent were male, 95 percent indicated full-time employment, and the average organizational ten- ure was 3.1 years (SD = 3.4).

Procedures The data collection process was facilitated by the vice president of human resources (HR) of the chain’s Middle East and Asia Pacific Division who encouraged property managers to facilitate the local administration of the sur- vey. The HR manager of each participating property dis- tributed the questionnaires, and all respondents were ensured full confidentiality.

Measures Empowering leadership. To measure empowering leader-

ship, we used a fifteen-item version of the Empowering Leadership Questionnaire, which was originally developed and validated by Arnold et al. (2000) and was adapted by Robert et al. (2000). This instrument, which has demon- strated good reliability in a multinational sample, assesses the five general categories of empowering leadership behav- iors: leading by example, participative decision making, coaching, informing, and showing concern for and interact- ing with the team. Because the subscales for the five leader behaviors are highly correlated, and other researchers have done so (Arnold et al. 2000; Robert et al. 2000; Srivastava, Bartol, and Locke 2006), the scales were aggregated to form a single “empowering leadership” measure. Items in the scale all have the stem “My supervisor . . ..” Sample items

include “works as hard as anyone in my team” (leading by example), “listens to my team’s ideas and suggestions” (participative decision making), “teaches team members how to solve problems on their own” (coaching), “explains his or her decisions and actions to my team” (informing), and “shows concern for team members’ success” (showing concern).

Psychological empowerment. We measured psychological empowerment with the twelve-item psychological empow- erment scale, which was originally developed and validated by Spreitzer (1995). This scale’s four subscales are also highly correlated and can be combined to create a single psychological empowerment measure (Seibert, Silver, and Randolph 2004; Spreitzer 1995, 1996). Sample items (and subscales) include “The work I do is very important to me” (meaning), “I am confident about my ability to do my job” (competence), “I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job” (self-determination), and “I have signifi- cant influence over what happens in my department” (impact).

Organizational commitment. The Organizational Commit- ment Questionnaire (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979) was used to assess organizational commitment, and we adopted Tett and Meyer’s (1993) recommendation to use the nine- item version, which was based on their meta-analysis. Sam- ple items include “This company inspires me to work hard at my job” and “I really care about the fate of this company.”

Power distance. We measured individual power distance values with three value types adapted from the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), the values scale most used in cross- cultural research. Each of the three Schwartz values scales we adopted overlaps theoretically with Hofstede’s (1980) description of power distance. First, the five-item “Power” scale concerns the degree to which status and power differ- entials are accepted and expected—sample item: “AUTHOR- ITY (the right to lead or command).” Second, the four-item “Conformity” scale concerns the degree to which individu- als are expected to “inhibit inclinations that might be socially disruptive if interaction and group functioning are to run smoothly” (Schwartz 1992, 9)—sample item: “OBEDIENT (dutiful, meeting obligations).” Finally, the six-item “Tradi- tion” scale concerns the degree to which individuals accept the customs or traditions of their group—sample item: “RESPECT FOR TRADITION (preservation of time- honored customs).”

Voice behavior. To represent as comprehensive a construct as possible, voice behavior was measured with items from Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) six-item Voice scale; Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meuter’s (2001) five-item Participation scale; and Bettencourt, Brown, and MacKenzie’s (2005) four-item Internal Influence scale. After removing redundant items and those irrelevant to service contexts, the final measure included ten items. A sample item is “speaks up in this

Exhibit 1: Overview of Surveyed Properties

Geographic Region Number of Properties Country Locations

Middle East 3 Egypt, United Arab Emirates South Asia 1 Maldives Southeast Asia 4 Indonesia, Malaysia,

Singapore, Vietnam East Asia 5 China, Japan Australia/Micronesia 3 Australia, Fiji Total 16

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Raub and Robert 141

department with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.”

Response scales. The response scales for all measures except those measuring power distance values ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. For power dis- tance values, in keeping with the original response scales developed by Schwartz (1992), participants were asked to indicate the importance of each value using a scale ranging from −1 to 7, where −1 was anchored by the phrase “opposed to my values,” 0 was anchored by “not important,” and 7 was anchored by “of supreme importance.”

Results Exhibit 2 presents scale means, SDs, coefficient alphas, and correlations for the variables in the analyses. Reliabilities for all scales were acceptable (over .90).

All six hypotheses were tested with structural equation modeling (SEM) using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993). Fit indices for all measurement and structural mod- els are reported in Exhibit 3. A four-factor confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the fit of a mea- surement model, which was examined using three or four multi-item parcels (i.e., an average of multiple items) per construct rather than individual items. Because individual items tend to be crudely measured (Bandalos 2002) and result in less optimal variable to sample size ratios that

underestimate model fit (Bagozzi and Edwards 1998), statis- ticians often recommend the use of item parceling strategies (e.g., Drasgow 1995), particularly when the underlying research questions involve relationships between the con- structs rather than the functioning of individual items (Labouvie and Ruetsch 1995). The loading of one of the indicators of each factor was constrained to a value of 1.0 for identification purposes. The fit of the measurement model was acceptable (χ2 = 220.10, degrees of freedom [df] = 59, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .069, nonnormed fit index [NNFI] = .97, and comparative fit index [CFI] = .97), and an examination of indicator loadings and modification indices associated with cross-loadings confirmed that the indicators loaded on their intended con- struct. Therefore, we proceeded with the estimation of struc- tural models designed to test the hypotheses.

The Mediation and Alternative Models To test our first three hypotheses, which predicted that psy- chological empowerment would be related to organizational commitment and voice behavior, and that psychological empowerment would mediate the relationship between empowering leadership behaviors and both organizational commitment and voice behavior, we fit to the data two structural models, the “Mediation Model” and the “Alternative Model.” In the Mediation Model, empowering

Exhibit 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Reliabilities, and Correlations Among Study Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Empowering leadership 5.55 1.06 .96 2. Psychological empowerment 5.50 0.92 .46 .92 3. Organizational commitment 5.53 1.04 .47 .75 .91 4. Voice behavior 5.01 1.13 .26 .29 .25 .95 5. Power distance values 5.01 1.18 .36 .58 .58 .21 .92

Note: Bold numbers on the diagonal are Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities. Response scales for all measures except those measuring power distance values ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. For power distance values, response options ranged from −1 to 7, where −1 was anchored by the phrase “opposed to my values,” 0 was anchored by “not important,” and 7 was anchored by “of supreme importance.”

Exhibit 3: Fit Indices for Measurement Model, Structural Models, and Multigroup Mediation Models

Model χ2 df RMSEA NNFI CFI

Measurement model 220.10 59 .069 .97 .97 Mediation Model 233.12 62 .068 .96 .97 Alternative Model 220.35 60 .068 .97 .97 Moderation by power distance Baseline model 375.13 139 .091 .93 .94 Unconstrained path coefficients 330.74 136 .083 .94 .95

Note: df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

142 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)

leadership behavior is exogenous, and predicts psychologi- cal empowerment, which in turn predicts both organiza- tional commitment and voice behavior. The Mediation Model fit the data well (χ2 = 233.12, df = 62, RMSEA = .068, NNFI = .96, and CFI = .97). Examination of the indi- vidual path coefficients indicated that all paths were statisti- cally significant (p < .0001; see Exhibit 4). The Alternative Model adds paths directly from empowering leadership to organizational commitment and from empowering leader- ship to voice behavior. The fit of the Alternative Model, with its two additional paths, was also good (χ2 = 220.35, df = 60, RMSEA = .068, NNFI = .97, and CFI = .97). However, omni- bus fit statistics indicated that the Alternative and Mediation Models fit the data about equally well, and the change in chi-square indicated that the fit of the Alternative Model was only marginally better (Δχ2 = 12.77, df = 2, p < .01). Moreover, although the direct paths from empowering lead- ership to organizational commitment and from empowering leadership to voice behaviors were significant (p < .01), the coefficients indicated only weak direct relationships from empowering leadership to organizational commitment and voice behavior (i.e., .10 and .13, respectively), whereas the mediational paths between empowering leadership and psychological empowerment, and between psychological empowerment and both organizational commitment and voice behavior remained relatively strong and significant (p < .0001). Although these results technically indicated “par- tial mediation,” given the relatively weak direct paths from empowering leadership to both organizational commitment and voice behavior, and the fact that the more parsimonious Mediation Model fit nearly as well as the Alternative Model, we conclude that Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are supported.

Moderation by Values

After confirming that the fit of the Mediation Model was rea- sonable, a series of models was fit to test Hypotheses 4 to 6. To examine moderation, we divided the sample into thirds based on individuals’ mean score on a combined power dis- tance values measure. Specifically, because each of the three Schwartz values measures (i.e., Power, Conformity, and Tradition) was chosen based on its theoretical overlap with the construct of power distance, and because the three individual values measures were highly correlated with each other (i.e., between r = .67 and .78), we used the mean of the three Schwartz values measures to define our composite power distance values variable. We then divided the sample into ter- tiles based on the power distance composite variable. Two multigroup models were fit to the data to contrast individuals who endorsed the power distance values composite strongly (top third within the sample), with those who endorsed it weakly (bottom third). A “Baseline” multigroup model was fit, in which indicator loadings and paths between latent variables (i.e., those specified in the Mediation Model) were estimated, but constrained to equality across groups. A subsequent “Unconstrained” model was then fit to the data, which allowed only the paths between latent variables to differ across groups. If the Unconstrained model fits the data significantly better than the Constrained model (based on a chi-square difference test), then the actual path coefficients can be examined to determine the direction and magnitude of moderation.

A comparison of the fit of the Baseline model (χ2 = 375.13, df = 139, RMSEA = .091, NNFI = .93, and CFI = .94) with the Unconstrained model (χ2 = 330.74, df = 136, RMSEA = .083, NNFI = .94, and CFI = .95) indicated that the Unconstrained model fit the data significantly better

Exhibit 4: Standardized Path Coefficients for the Mediation Analysis

.55*** (.53***) .84*** (.78***)

.31*** (.23***)

Empowering Leadership

Organizational Commitment

Voice Behavior

Psychological Empowerment

(.10**)

(.13**)

Note: Path coefficients in parentheses refer to the alternative partial Mediation Model. *p < .01. **p < .001. ***p < .0001.

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Raub and Robert 143

than the Baseline model (Δχ2 = 44.39, df = 3, and p < .0001). More important, when the patterns of the path coefficients are examined, the coefficients for participants in the high power distance composite group are consistently lower than the coefficients for the low power distance group, support- ing our predictions about moderation by power distance. Common metric standardized path estimates for respon- dents in each group are presented in Exhibit 5, which shows that the standardized path coefficient between empowering leadership and psychological empowerment is substantially lower in the high power distance group than in the low power distance group (supporting Hypothesis 4). Similarly, the paths between psychological empowerment and organi- zational commitment and between psychological empower- ment and voice behavior are lower in the high power distance group than in the low power distance group (sup- porting Hypotheses 5 and 6).

Discussion Implications for Research

This study contributes to the literature on empowerment in four important ways. First, the results provide support for the assertion that psychological empowerment is strongly related to organizational commitment and voice behavior. This study examines both organizational commitment and voice behavior simultaneously, demonstrating that psycho- logical empowerment can have important attitudinal and behavioral effects. Confidence in the relationship is also bolstered by the fact that the psychological empowerment and voice behavior data were collected from different sources (i.e., employees and managers), avoiding possible single source of data bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Second, the results suggest that leaders’ attempts to empower sub- ordinates are at least partially dependent on the degree to which they can influence subordinates’ psychological

empowerment. The broad multinational sample used here helps provide a third contribution to the literature. The fact that the mediated model fit our data quite well reinforces the notion that empowerment might be effective across a wide variety of countries. Although our sample was not big enough to evaluate each country individually, the results should be encouraging for multinational corporations that are currently using empowerment practices or intend to do so in the future. The final contribution to the literature comes from the analysis of moderation by culture. We found that the relationships between empowering leader- ship and psychological empowerment, and between psy- chological empowerment and organizational commitment and voice behavior, were substantially weaker among par- ticipants who strongly endorsed values related to power distance. Unlike Robert et al. (2000), we did not find a negative relationship between empowerment and outcomes in any high power distance society. Instead, our findings indicate that the overall impact of empowerment is posi- tive, but just less positive among individuals who are high in power distance values.

Managerial Implications Our results suggest that attempts to empower workers in countries with high average levels of power distance (e.g., India, China, Malaysia) might be less successful than they would be in countries with lower levels of power distance (e.g., the United States, Switzerland, Scandinavian coun- tries). However, there are two reasons why this should not automatically discourage organizations from attempting to empower employees in high power distance countries. First, relationships between empowerment and the out- comes were positive, even among those employees who scored in the top third of power-distance-relevant values. Second, because there is variability among individuals within all countries, empowerment efforts might be highly

Exhibit 5: Standardized Path Coefficients for the Moderation Analysis

.39***

/.66*** .49***

/.99***

.19*

/.34***

Empowering Leadership

Organizational Commitment

Voice Behavior

Psychological Empowerment

Note: The top number represents the coefficient for participants scoring in the top third of the power distance composite. The bottom number represents the coefficient for participants scoring in the bottom third of the power distance composite. *p < .01. **p < .001. ***p < .0001.

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

144 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)

effective even in high power distance countries, particu- larly if individuals with low power distance values are attracted to organizations that use empowerment.

Indeed, organizations in which a worker empowerment philosophy is a key managerial tenet might want to screen employees based on power distance values and develop recruiting practices that highlight the organization’s empow- erment philosophy. In addition, given our finding that empowering leadership is related to psychological empow- erment, companies may want to recruit managers who are comfortable being primary agents of empowerment. High power distance managers might be particularly hesitant to empower workers if they perceive that empowerment will serve to decrease their own power and status. Therefore, organizations that wish to use an empowerment philosophy might find empowerment practices easier to implement if they select low power distance managers, and if they send a clear message that employee empowerment is a core value of the organization’s culture.

The positive relationship between empowerment and voice behavior is also of particular relevance for the hospi- tality industry. It has long been argued that the success of service organizations depends to a large extent on the perfor- mance of frontline service employees (Singh 2000; Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman 1988). High-quality service gener- ally requires the display of innovative and spontaneous activity, except in the most routine of tasks (Victorino and Bolinger 2012). When frontline employees feel empowered to take initiative and address service-related problems by making constructive suggestions for improvement, their contributions are likely to lead to improved service quality.

Our results suggest three specific recommendations for multinational hospitality organizations. First, employee empowerment appears to be a promising approach for orga- nizations seeking to stimulate higher levels of OCBs in their frontline employees. This recommendation is highly rele- vant for an industry characterized by policies and practices, which have been described as “archaic” and “inflexible” (Tracey and Nathan 2002, 17) and in which only a few orga- nizations (e.g., The Ritz-Carlton, The Rezidor Hotel Group) are known for their active implementation of empowerment practices (Bacon and Pugh 2004). Second, the use of appro- priate recruitment and selection procedures with the objec- tive of employing individuals who will be most responsive to empowering leadership is of great importance. Third, the success of an empowerment strategy on an international scale may benefit from selective implementation and adaptation depending on national or regional cultural values. This is an important caveat for an industry with a traditionally hetero- geneous workforce that represents many different cultures.

Research on the implementation of empowerment in high power distance contexts has emphasized the hierarchi- cal nature in the social relationship between superiors and subordinates and the heavy reliance of subordinates on the

managerial hierarchy (Li 1999). In such a context, one of the keys to the success of an empowerment strategy lies in employees’ perception of support from the organization and their superior. Without adequate support, employees may equate empowerment with “abandonment” and they will not perceive the safe atmosphere that is necessary for empow- ered behaviors (Humborstad et al. 2008). Moreover, empiri- cal results from a study conducted in China also suggest that the alignment of reward systems with desired empowered work behaviors can play an important role for the success- ful implementation of empowerment in a high power dis- tance context (Humborstad et al. 2008).

Empowering leadership may also serve as a solution to the hospitality industry’s need for workforce flexibility (Lockwood and Guerrier 1989). Rather than rely on part- time and casual workers, hospitality firms could apply an approach of “functional flexibility” (Riley 1992), which implies reliance on a multiskilled workforce capable of switching between different jobs. When functional flexi- bility is introduced, hospitality organizations can rely more on full-time employees, who are generally viewed as more dedicated to an organization, and more likely to engage in OCBs (Moorman and Harland 2002; Stamper and Van Dyne 2001). Unfortunately, attempts to introduce func- tional flexibility approaches often fail due to the strong departmentalization that is a characteristic feature of large- scale hospitality organizations (Guerrier and Lockwood 1989). Employees fear that they lack the competencies required in another department or are reluctant to intrude on another department’s “turf.” Empowering leadership is likely to contribute to increased perceptions of competence and self-determination and might facilitate the introduction of functional flexibility. Empowered employees may be faster to notice problems that occur outside their immedi- ate area of responsibility and more inclined to take initia- tive by helping their colleagues or voicing ideas for constructive improvements. However, research by Ahearne, Mathieu, and Rapp (2005) suggests that contrary to popu- lar belief, the employees who benefit most from empower- ing leader behaviors are those individuals who have the lowest amount of job knowledge and experience. Therefore, empowering leadership behaviors might be used to compensate for some of the shortcomings of staff- ing options that rely more heavily on individuals with relatively little knowledge or experience.

Finally, empowerment may also have important benefi- cial effects for the productivity of managers in the hospital- ity industry. In an empowered work environment, managers may be able to rely on subordinates’ ability and willingness to take initiative rather than spend their time assigning spe- cific tasks and monitoring subordinates’ performance. For managers, the result would be that valuable working time is freed up and can be applied to tasks that add more value to the organization.

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Raub and Robert 145

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

A chief limitation of this study is that we collected data from a single multinational organization in the hospitality industry, which limits the generalizability of our results. Moreover, services require some behavioral discretion by frontline service employees for their successful delivery. Therefore, our results might not generalize to contexts in which employee behavior is guided by stringent standard operating procedures and discretion cannot be exercised to the same extent as in the service context. Concerns regarding generalizability may also stem from the geographic restric- tion in our samples, although our sample includes more countries than any other empowerment research of which we are aware and includes nations that have rarely been studied in the hospitality context.

Another limitation concerns the fact that our measures of empowering leadership, psychological empowerment, orga- nizational commitment, and individual power values all relied on self-report, raising concerns about same-source bias. However, it is important to note that voice behavior was independently assessed by supervisors. This feature of our data, combined with evidence of moderated and medi- ated effects involving voice behavior, significantly addresses concerns that our findings were substantially influenced by single-source biases. A final limitation is that the cross- sectional nature of our data does not allow for unambiguous causal inferences.

Future research could adopt a longitudinal approach to address the limitations of our cross-sectional study and gain insight into how the effects of empowering leadership unfold over time. An extension to a broader range of cultural con- texts with a stronger representation of low power distance cultures may also provide valuable insights. Moreover, we would hope that future research extends our study by inves- tigating additional outcomes that are of great relevance to the hospitality industry, including turnover intention and a broader range of OCBs. A final promising avenue for future research might involve shifting the focus from subordinates to leaders. Although our study focuses on the role of power distance in shaping the attitudes and behaviors of frontline service employees, differences in power distance values could also affect the willingness of leaders to engage in empowering leadership behavior. Future research along these lines would hold the promise of providing managers with a more complete picture of how the implementation of an empowerment approach in a multinational organization is influenced by differences in cultural values.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adler, N. J., and M. Jelinek. 1986. Is “organizational culture” cul- ture bound? Human Resource Management 25:73-90.

Ahearne, M., J. Mathieu, and A. Rapp. 2005. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 90:945-55.

Arnold, J. A., S. Arad, J. A. Rhoades, and F. Drasgow. 2000. The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21:249-69.

Avolio, B. J., W. Zhu, W. Koh, and P. Bhatia. 2004. Transfor- mational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediat- ing role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25:951-68.

Bacon, T. R., and D. G. Pugh. 2004. Ritz-Carlton and EMC: The gold standards in operational behavioral differentiation. Jour- nal of Organizational Excellence 23 (Spring): 61-76.

Bagozzi, R. P., and J. R. Edwards. 1998. A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organiza- tional Research Methods 1:45-87.

Bandalos, D. L. 2002. The effects of item parceling on goodness- of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation mod- eling. Structural Equation Modeling 9:78-102.

Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84:191-215.

Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Bettencourt, L. A., K. P. Gwinner, and M. L. Meuter. 2001. A comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology 86:29-41.

Bettencourt, L. A., S. W. Brown, and S. B. MacKenzie. 2005. Customer-oriented boundary-spanning behaviors: Test of a social exchange model of antecedents. Journal of Retailing 81:141-57.

Biron, M., and P. Bamberger. 2007, August 3-8. Managerial- enacted empowerment: Dimensionality and effects on the wellbeing and performance of service workers. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings 1-6.

Biron, M., and P. Bamberger. 2010. The impact of structural empowerment on individual well-being and performance: Taking agent preferences, self-efficacy and operational con- straints into account. Human Relations 63 (2): 163-91.

Blanchard, K. H., J. P. Carlos, and W. A. Randolph. 1999. The 3 keys to empowerment. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

146 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)

Bowen, D. E., and E. E. Lawler. 1992. The empowerment of ser- vice workers: What, why, how, and when. Sloan Management Review 33:31-9.

Bowen, D. E., and E. E. Lawler. 1995. Empowering service employees. Sloan Management Review 36:73-84.

Bradley, G. L., and B. A. Sparks. 2000. Customer reactions to staff empowerment: Mediators and moderators. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30 (5): 991-1012.

Brymer, R. A. 1991. Employee empowerment: A guest-driven leadership strategy. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Admin- istration Quarterly 32 (1): 58-68.

Carl, D., V. Gupta, and M. Javidan. 2004. Power distance. In Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies, ed. R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, 513-63. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Carson, P., and K. Carson. 1998. Does empowerment translate into action? An examination of service recovery initiatives. Journal of Quality Management 3 (1): 133-48.

Conger, J. A., and R. N. Kanungo. 1988. The empowerment pro- cess: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Manage- ment Review 13:471-82.

Dansereau, J., G. Graen, and W. J. Haga. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organi- zational Behavior & Human Performance 13:46-78.

Drasgow, F. 1995. Some comments on Labouvie and Ruetsch. Multivariate Behavioral Research 30:83-5.

Earley, P. C. 1993. East meets west meets mideast: Further explo- rations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Acad- emy of Management Journal 36:319-48.

Geralis, M., and M. Terziovski. 2003. A quantitative analysis of the relationship between empowerment practices and service quality outcomes. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 14 (1): 45-62.

Gill, A., N. Mathur, S. P. Sharma, and S. Bhutani. 2011. The effects of empowerment and transformational leadership on employee intentions to quit: A study of restaurant workers in India. International Journal of Management 28 (1): 217-29.

Gill, A., S. Fitzgerald, S. Bhutani, H. Mand, and S. Sharma. 2010. The relationship between transformational leadership and employee desire for empowerment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (2): 263-73.

Goodale, J. C., and M. Koerner. 1997. Analyzing the impact of service provider empowerment on. Journal of Quality Man- agement 2 (2): 191-214.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25:161-78.

Guerrier, Y., and A. Lockwood. 1989. Managing flexible working in hotels. The Service Industries Journal 9:406-19.

Hocutt, M., and T. H. Stone. 1998. The impact of employee empowerment on the quality of service recovery effort. Jour- nal of Quality Management 3 (1): 117-32.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differ- ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: SAGE.

Hofstede, G. 1993. Cultural constraints on management theories. Academy of Management Executive 7:81-94.

Hon, A. H. Y., and W. W. H. Chan. Forthcoming. Team creative performance: The roles of empowering leadership, creative- related motivation, and task interdependence. Cornell Hospi- tality Quarterly 54 (1).

Hulin, C. L. 1991. Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 2, ed. M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough, 445-505. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hulin, C. L., M. Roznowski, and D. Hachiya. 1985. Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theo- retical discrepancies and integration. Psychological Bulletin 97:233-50.

Humborstad, S. I. W., B. Humborstad, R. Whitfield, and C. Perry. 2008. Implementation of empowerment in Chinese high power-distance organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management 19 (7): 1349-64.

Iverson, K. 2000. Managing for effective workforce diversity. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41:31-8.

Jha, S. S., and S. K. Nair. 2006. Empowerment in the Indian hotel industry: The role of employee personality. IIMB Manage- ment Review 18 (3): 253-64.

Jöreskog, K., and D. Sörbom. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural equa- tion modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hills- dale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoreson, J. E. Bono, and G. K. Patton. 2001. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin 127:376-407.

Kaye, M., and W. Taylor. 1997. Expatriate culture shock in China: A study in the Beijing hotel industry. Journal of Managerial Psychology 12:496-510.

Kirkman, B. L., and D. L. Shapiro. 1997. The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review 22:730-57.

Labouvie, E., and C. Ruetsch. 1995. Testing for equivalence of measurement scales: Simple structure and metric invariance reconsidered. Multivariate Behavioral Research 30:63-76.

Lashley, C. 1995. Towards an understanding of employee empow- erment in hospitality services. International Journal of Con- temporary Hospitality Management 7 (1): 27-33.

Lashley, C. 1999. Employee empowerment in services: A frame- work for analysis. Personnel Review 28 (3): 169-91.

Lawler, E. E. 1986. High-involvement management: Participa- tive strategies for improving organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Li, S. T. K. 1999. Management development in international com- panies in China. Education & Training 41 (6/7): 331-35.

Liao, H. 2007. Do it right this time: The role of employee service recovery performance in customer-perceived justice and cus- tomer loyalty after service failures. Journal of Applied Psy- chology 92:475-89.

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Raub and Robert 147

Liao, H., and A. Chuang. 2004. A multilevel investigation of fac- tors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 47:41-58.

Liden, R. C., S. J. Wayne, and R. T. Sparrowe. 2000. An examina- tion of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 85:407-16.

Lockwood, A., and Y. Guerrier. 1989. Flexible working in the hospitality industry: Current strategies and future potential. Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 1:11-16.

Manz, C. C., and H. P. Sims Jr. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managed work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 32:106-28.

Manz, C. C., and H. P. Sims Jr. 1993. Business without bosses: How superteams are managing and leading themselves. New York: Wiley.

Meihem, Y. 2004. The antecedents of customer-contact employ- ees’ empowerment. Employee Relations 26 (1): 72-93.

Moorman, R. H., and L. K. Harland. 2002. Temporary employees as good citizens: Factors influencing their OCB performance. Journal of Business and Psychology 17:171-87.

Mowday, R. T., R. M. Steers, and L. W. Porter. 1979. The mea- surement of organizational commitment. Journal of Voca- tional Behavior 14:224-47.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington: Lexington Books.

Peccei, R., and P. Rosenthal. 2001. Delivering customer-oriented behavior through empowerment: An empirical test of HRM assumptions. Journal of Management Studies 38 (6): 831-57.

Piccolo, R. F., and J. A. Colquitt. 2006. Transformational leader- ship and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job charac- teristics. Academy of Management Journal 49:327-40.

Ping, H., S. K. Murrmann, and R. R. Perdue. 2010. An investi- gation of the relationships among employee empowerment, employee perceived service quality, and employee job satis- faction in a U.S. hospitality organization. Journal of Foodser- vice Business Research 13 (1): 36-50.

Pierce, J. L., and D. G Gardner. 2004. Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30 (5): 591-622.

Podolny, J. M., R. Khurana, and M. Hill-Popper. 2005. Revisiting the meaning of leadership. Research in Organizational Behav- ior 26:1-36.

Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. B. Paine, and D. G. Bachrach. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26:513-63.

Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A criti- cal review of the literature and recommended recipes. Journal of Applied Psychology 88:879-903.

Rafiq, M., and P. K. Ahmed. 1998. A customer-oriented frame- work for empowering service employees. The Journal of Ser- vices Marketing 12 (5): 379-96.

Randolph, W. A. 1995. Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics 23:19-32.

Randolph, W. A. 2000. Re-thinking empowerment: Why is it so hard to achieve? Organizational Dynamics 29:94-107.

Randolph, W. A., and M. Sashkin. 2002. Can organizational empow- erment work in multinational settings? Academy of Manage- ment Executive 16:102-15.

Riley, M. 1992. Functional flexibility in hotels—Is it feasible? Tourism Management 13:363-67.

Robert, C., T. M. Probst, J. J. Martocchio, F. Drasgow, and J. J. Lawler. 2000. Empowerment and continuous improve- ment in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predict- ing fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology 85:643-58.

Salazar, J., C. Pfaffenberg, and L. Salazar. 2006. Locus of control vs. employee empowerment and the relationship with hotel managers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 5 (1): 1-15.

Scandura, T. A., G. B. Graen, and M. A. Novak. 1986. When man- agers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (4): 579-584.

Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 coun- tries. In Advances in experimental social psychology, ed. M. P. Zanna, 1-65. San Diego: SAGE.

Seibert, S. E., S. R. Silver, and W. A. Randolph. 2004. Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 47:332-49.

Singh, J. 2000. Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service organizations. Journal of Marketing 64:15-34.

Sparks, B. A., G. L. Bradley, and V. J. Callan. 1997. The impact of staff empowerment and communication style on customer evaluations: The special case of service failure. Psychology & Marketing 14 (5): 475-93.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the work- place: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal 38:1442-65.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of psy- chological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 39:483-504.

Srivastava, A., K. M. Bartol, and E. A. Locke. 2006. Empower- ing leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal 49:1239-51.

Stamper, C. L., and L. Van Dyne. 2001. Work status and orga- nizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22:517-36.

Sutton, J., C. Verginis, and L. Ettvik. 2003. Empowerment and customer satisfaction strategies in multi-cultural hotel restaurant environments: The Dubai case. Journal of Foodservice Busi- ness Research 6 (3): 77-104.

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

148 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(2)

Tett, R. P., and J. P. Meyer. 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analy- ses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology 46:259-93.

Thomas, K. W., and B. A. Velthouse. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task moti- vation. Academy of Management Review 15:666-81.

Tracey, B. J., and A. E. Nathan. 2002. The strategic and opera- tional roles of human resources: An emerging model. The Cor- nell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 43:17-26.

Ueno, A. 2008. Is empowerment really a contributory factor to service quality? Service Industries Journal 28 (9): 1321-37.

Umashankar, V., and A. Kulkarni. 2002. Employee motivation and empowerment in hospitality, rhetoric or reality—Some observations from India. Journal of Services Research 2 (1): 31-53.

Van Dyne, L., and J. A. LePine. 1998. Helping and voice extra role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41:108-19.

Victorino, L., and A. R. Bolinger. 2012. Scripting employees: An exploratory analysis of customer perceptions. Cornell Hospi- tality Quarterly 53 (3): 196-206.

Yagil, D. 2006. The relationship of service provider power moti- vation, empowerment and burnout to customer satisfaction.

International Journal of Service Industry Management 17 (3/4): 258-70.

Yagil, D., and I. Gal. 2002. The role of organizational service cli- mate in generating control and empowerment among workers and customers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 9 (4): 215-26.

Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman. 1988. Commu- nication and control processes in the delivery of service qual- ity. Journal of Marketing 52:35-48.

Bios

Steffen Raub is a Professor of Organizational Behavior at Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Switzerland. His research interests include empowerment, organizational citizenship behavior, proactivity, organizational climate, and work design, with a special focus on service industries.

Christopher Robert is an Associate Professor of Management in the Trulaske College of Business at the University of Missouri, Columbia. His research involves cross-cultural and international management issues, groups and teams, and humor in the workplace.

at FLORIDA INTL UNIV on January 10, 2015cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from