Assignment 3
wealthprocess1
RES-850-W3-Article.pdf
RESEARCH REPORT
Structural and Psychological Empowerment Climates, Performance, and the Moderating Role of Shared Felt Accountability: A Managerial Perspective
J. Craig Wallace Oklahoma State University
Paul D. Johnson Western Carolina University
Kimberly Mathe and Jeff Paul Oklahoma State University
The authors proposed and tested a model in which data were collected from managers (n � 539) at 116 corporate-owned quick service restaurants to assess the structural and psychological empowerment process as moderated by shared-felt accountability on indices of performance from a managerial perspective. The authors found that empowering leadership climate positively relates to psychological empowerment climate. In turn, psychological empowerment climate relates to performance only under conditions of high-felt accountability; it does not relate to performance under conditions of low-felt accountability. Overall, the present results indicate that the quick-service restaurant managers, who feel more empowered, operate restaurants that perform better than managers who feel less empowered, but only when those empowered managers also feel a high sense of accountability.
Keywords: empowerment, leadership, accountability, performance, climate
The organizational empowerment literature differentiates em- powerment as either structural or psychological in form (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005; Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006; Spreitzer, 1995). With strong roots in the work design literature (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001), structural empowerment refers to the delegation of au- thority and responsibility to employees (e.g., leadership; Leach, Wall, & Jackson, 2003; Mathieu et al., 2006) and has been linked empirically with constructs of interest across multiple levels of analysis (e.g., G. Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004). Psychological empowerment is characterized as a four-dimensional psycho- logical state consisting of (a) meaningfulness, (b) competence, (c) self-determination, and (d) impact (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). Unlike structural empowerment,
psychological empowerment uses social information processing as the theoretical underpinning. As a result, psychological em- powerment has been shown to transform individual behaviors above and beyond the capabilities of structural empowerment alone (e.g., peer helping, supportive relationships; Corsun & Enz, 1999; Parker et al., 2001). To date, however, no research has examined the collective construct of psychological empow- erment (i.e., aggregated composite of meaningfulness, compe- tence, self-determination, and impact)—what we term psycho- logical empowerment climate—and how such a construct might operate in organizational contexts.
Existing research has demonstrated the positive aspects of empowerment, but what if empowered employees do not feel accountable, how might this condition influence subsequent performance? This rather practical question has far-reaching implications as performance may suffer if employees misuse their sense of empowerment. Accountability facilitates order in the workplace by creating awareness of answerable tasks, meth- ods for task achievement, as well as clarifying evaluation methods and agents (Breaux, Munyon, Hochwater, & Ferris, 2009). Hence, accountability appears to be a critical boundary condition in the empowerment process: Employees are empow- ered and maintain engagement in their jobs due to higher levels of felt accountability. Testing this boundary condition is the primary objective of the present research. Overall, we examined in the present study the extent to which shared managerial perceptions of psychological empowerment are related to indi- ces of effectiveness beyond empowering leadership, while also
This article was published Online First March 7, 2011. J. Craig Wallace and Jeff Paul, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma
State University; Paul D. Johnson, College of Business, Western Carolina University; Kimberly Mathe, School of Hotel & Restaurant Administra- tion, Oklahoma State University.
We thank Larry James and Bryan Edwards for the insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper. This paper was also presented at the annual Academy of Management Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August 2010.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to J. Craig Wallace, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, 700 North Greenwood, Tulsa, OK 74133. E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Applied Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 96, No. 4, 840 – 850 0021-9010/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0022227
840
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
demonstrating the importance of accountability as a moderator of this relationship (see Figure 1).
Empowering Leadership and Psychological Empowerment Climate
Climates are collective constructs (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999) in which ambient stimuli serve as a source of information that signal the appropriateness of member behaviors (Hackman, 1992). According to Morgeson and Hofmann (1999), “any given collective can be viewed as a series of ongoing, events, and event cycles between the compo- nent parts (e.g., individuals)” (p. 252). These event cycles within a given collective form a unique foundation for the emergence of the collective construct, which in turn leads to persistence of the collec- tive construct that ultimately shapes collective action via social infor- mation processing (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). Barker (1993) provides evidence to support this chain of events for customer service in that a newly codified and strengthened norm for service signifi- cantly related to service behavior among the collective’s members. This notion that collective constructs “emerge from interaction and can, over time, come to influence systems of interaction” (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999, p. 262) is the basis for the influence of climate in organizations.
Previous research has supported relationships between cli- mate and performance for various climate types (e.g., service, safety; Patterson, Warr, & West, 2004; Zohar, 2000, 2002). With regard to empowerment, Seibert et al. (2004) found that a leadership-based empowerment climate directly and positively related to group performance, whereas individual psychological empowerment mediated its cross-level relationship with indi- vidual performance. Other researchers have found positive re- lationships between leadership-based empowerment climate and task performance (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009), whereas others have shown that employees’ resistance to empowerment climate (i.e., rejecting empowerment) negatively relates to per- formance (Maynard, Mathieu, Marsh, & Ruddy, 2007). Al- though there is evidence that leadership-based empowerment climate relates to important organizational outcomes, research has yet to explicate fully the theoretical and empirical role that shared psychological empowerment climate might play in this process.
Empowerment is isomorphic (G. Chen et al., 2007; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, 1996) in that it retains the same meaning and function across levels of analysis (i.e., individual,
group; G. Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). James and colleagues (2008) stated, “Shared perceptual agreement at the individual level of analysis in climate research provides the meaning of the construct at a higher level of analysis” (p. 17). Integrating this notion of shared psychologi- cal constructs with the isomorphic nature of the psychological framework of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995), we conceptual- ize psychological empowerment climate as shared psychologi- cal perceptions of empowerment related to meaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact. Though we opera- tionalize this construct as psychological empowerment climate as experienced by managers (our sample consists of managers), we refer to the construct as psychological empowerment cli- mate in the present article.
Psychological empowerment climate is distinct from team empow- erment and empowering leadership (or structural empowerment). Team empowerment has been defined as “team members’ collective belief that they have the authority to control their proximal work environment and are responsible for their team’s functioning” (Mat- hieu et al., 2006, p. 98). Although the team empowerment construct is important to study in teams, it may not adequately capture the shared psychological perceptions of empowerment in more loosely orga- nized collectives, which are common in organizations. This is a particularly salient point in the present study, as our sample does not include organizationally structured teams; rather, it is composed of managers in a given location. Because team empowerment limits itself to teams, we focused on psychological empowerment climate as a broader conceptualization using managerial collectives in a given location (i.e., restaurant).
Seibert et al. (2004) defined empowerment climate as “employ- ees’ shared perceptions of managerial structures, policies, and practices related to empowerment” (p. 333). This operationaliza- tion and measurement of empowerment climate does not capture the shared psychological aspects of empowerment that psycholog- ical climates purport to capture (i.e., feeling empowered; James et al., 2008); rather, it captures structural aspects of empowerment stemming from organizational leadership (Seibert et al., 2004, p. 338). G. Chen et al. (2007) suggested that the notion of empow- erment climate as presented by Seibert et al. (2004) is highly consistent with Kirkman and Rosen’s (1999) empowering leader- ship behaviors, which depicts the structural component of empow- erment. In fact, G. Chen et al. (2007) integrated Kirkman and Rosen’s (1999) and Seibert et al.’s (2004) work and used the term
Figure 1. Theoretical model of hypothesized relationships.
841EMPOWERMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
“empowering leadership climate”1 in their study (p. 333). Seibert et al. (2004) also demonstrated via factor analysis that empowering leadership climate is distinct from psychological empowerment. Thus, empowering leadership climate and psychological empow- erment climate are theoretically and empirically distinct from each other, with the former measuring structural empowerment and the latter measuring psychological empowerment. Despite being dis- tinct constructs, empowering leadership is a likely antecedent to psychological empowerment climate (cf. Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
Theory and research (e.g., Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; G. Chen et al., 2007; Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003; Zohar, 2000, 2002; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008) demonstrate that leadership is ante- cedent to climate, which has been explained via engagement in the social learning process wherein unit members observe, interact, and codify norms on the basis of leader behavior that develops into a common understanding of that behavior (i.e., climate for some- thing; Dragoni, 2005; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). In a similar fashion, psychological empower- ment climate likely develops from empowering leadership (Menon, 2001) by providing the necessary conditions for feeling empowered. The empowering leader implements policies, prac- tices, and procedures with the objective of empowering collective members, which results in members sharing a perception of being empowered (in our case, store and assistant managers in a given restaurant). This relationship is due to the leader (a) assisting members to understand their work, thereby enhancing the mean- ingfulness of work, (b) expressing confidence in members’ ability to complete tasks, (c) providing autonomy by encouraging mem- bers to decide how to carry out work, and (d) encouraging mem- bers to participate in decision making (Manz & Sims, 1987; Sims & Manz, 1994; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). As such, shared percep- tions of psychological empowerment are partially driven by unit leaders and partially result from a social learning process among unit members. In this process, ambient stimuli, social cues, and explicit information generate shared feelings of psychological em- powerment, which strengthens over repeated cycles of interaction. This relationship has been found at the individual level (Zhang & Bartol, 2010) and crossing hierarchical levels (Z. Chen, Lam, & Zhong, 2007; Seibert et al., 2004), but it has not been examined from a managerial perspective. This relationship also constitutes an important piece of our model. Hence, our first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Empowering leadership climate positively relates to psychological empowerment climate.
Psychological Empowerment Climate and Performance
Psychological empowerment climate fosters empowerment- related behaviors and outcomes via social learning. Social learning theory proposes that individuals model their own behavior through observation of salient environmental stimuli, particularly the be- havior of others such as leaders and colleagues (Bandura, 1986). In this case, psychological empowerment climate acts as a source of salient stimuli, which is interpreted and integrated into the behav- ioral system of collective members (i.e., managers for the present study). Thus, as managers identify social cues about desired be- haviors and norms, they learn about the psychological empower- ment climate encompassing meaningfulness, competence, self- determination, and impact. Managers in highly empowered units
possess a common understanding of competence, the ability to determine appropriate work methods, and the significance of their work. As a result, managers share similar behavioral strategies as each manager learns and models behavior after one another, in- cluding increased motivation to engage in their work (Lawler, 1996). Thus, an increase in psychological empowerment climate and the subsequent decrease in behavioral variability among man- agers in a given collective results in more cognitive, physical, and socioemotional resources for managers to apply toward work tasks as they are not expending resources on understanding their envi- ronment (cf. Dragoni, 2005; Hochwarter, Witt, Treadway, & Fer- ris, 2006).
Given this social learning process, it is probable that psycho- logical empowerment climate can be broadened and strengthened within managerial collectives via repeated interactions (Dragoni, 2005; Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). When shared perceptions of empowerment are high, the continued interactions among manag- ers produce a positive spiral generating additional empowerment perceptions (cf. Feldman, 2004). Such increases in meaningful- ness, competence, self-determination, and impact (i.e., psycholog- ical empowerment climate) should increase performance due to the role of psychological empowerment as an enabling process that allows managers to increase task engagement and persistence. Therefore, we contend that shared managerial perceptions of psy- chological empowerment climate positively relate to performance, of which service and sales are two key indices in the present sample.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Psychological empowerment climate pos- itively relates to sales (H2a) and service (H2b).
Shared Felt Accountability as a Moderator
Accountability is defined as “an implicit or explicit expectation that one’s decisions or actions will be subject to evaluation by some salient audience(s) with the belief that there exists the potential for one to receive either rewards or sanctions based on the expected evaluation” (Hall et al., 2003, p. 33). Accountability is most often conceptualized and studied as a perceptual state (i.e., felt accountability) rather than an objective condition (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Hochwarter et al., 2007; Tetlock, 1985). Research suggests that accountability relates to a number of important organizational constructs, such as motivation (Enzle & Anderson, 1993) and job performance (Hochwarter et al., 2007; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989).
Gelfand, Lim, and Raver (2004) proposed the perceptual state of accountability as a multilevel phenomenon of which there are two forms: structural alignment and web alignment. Structural align- ment exists when organizational members perceive formal orga- nizational policies, rules, and procedures in the same fashion. Web alignment is the extent to which individuals share a common understanding of informal behavioral expectations, specific to a
1 Preacher et al.’s (2007) study also contains multiple models for testing moderated-mediation. We used Model 3. We also used Preacher et al.’s macro, and the complete reference for the macro is provided in the References list. Finally, the macro provides confidence interval options for percentile and biased methods—results with these options supported the same pattern of significance.
842 WALLACE, JOHNSON, MATHE, AND PAUL
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
given collective, thereby different from formal policies, rules, and procedures (cf. Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Zohar, 2000). Of partic- ular interest to the present study is Gelfand et al.’s (2004) concep- tualization of within-collective web alignment (i.e., members per- ceive similar accountability norms). Building on the notion of within-unit accountability alignment (Gelfand et al., 2004) and the definition of accountability provided by Hall et al. (2003), we conceptualized shared felt accountability as a collective expecta- tion in which decisions and behaviors are subject to evaluation and justification by a salient organizational agent(s). As with psycho- logical empowerment climate, the interactions between and among restaurant managers not only give rise to but also strengthen the collective accountability among managers via repeated cycles of interaction and influence. Through mutual influence, managers codify accountability norms by acting on heightened perceptions of felt accountability. As such, accountability is isomorphic across levels of analysis (cf. Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
Shared felt accountability differs from the notion of “responsi- bility and accountability” presented by Seibert et al. (2004) as a component of empowering leadership climate. Seibert et al. (2004) define accountability as “the perception that teams are the locus of decision-making authority [responsibility] and performance ac- countability in organizations” (p. 333). This definition of account- ability is more structural in nature as it describes the delegation of authority and responsibility. This does not accurately capture shared felt accountability, but rather captures whether managers have been charged with the duty and obligation to monitor their own behavior. For example, Seibert et al. (2004) measured the extent to which members perceive they are responsible for their own accountability (e.g., “We use teams as the focal point of responsibility and accountability in our organization,” p. 338). Due to these discrepancies, four issues limit us from adopting Seibert et al.’s (2004) conceptualization of responsibility and accountability. First, we do not focus on teams. Second, Seibert et al. (2004) combined responsibility and accountability into the same dimen- sion, despite the conceptual distinction between the two (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Hall et al., 2006). Third, the conceptualization and measure used by Siebert et al. (2004) does not measure shared felt accountability. Fourth, and perhaps most important, accountability is not a theoretical component in psychological empowerment (Spretizer, 1995). Accordingly, we believe that the present re- search more accurately conceptualizes shared felt accountability.
According to Hall et al. (2003), accountability facilitates orga- nizational order by creating awareness of task responsibilities and acceptable methods for task achievement as well as by identifying the relevant evaluative organizational agent(s) (see also Breaux et al., 2009). Accountability creates a behavioral boundary that guides and directs resources toward a specified set of objectives for behavior and performance (Hall et al., 2006). Given that within-unit accountability is a shared perception that exists within collectives (Gelfand et al., 2004) and that accountability also provides members with clear expectancies for resource utilization (Hall et al., 2003, 2006), it is likely that accountability helps channel resources toward achieving expected outcomes. There- fore, we proposed shared felt accountability as a moderator of the psychological empowerment climate and performance relationship because although felt accountability accentuates the positive as- pects of a psychological empowerment climate, it does not lead to them.
When shared felt accountability is high, managers are likely more familiar with evaluative standards for decisions and behav- iors, thereby reducing confusion, conflict, and anxiety leading to enhanced performance (Davis, Mero, & Goodman, 2007; Fandt, 1991; Mero, Guidice, & Brownlee, 2007). Low shared felt ac- countability likely leads to increased confusion, conflict, and anx- iety among managers in a given collective due to a lack of normative evaluation standards (Gelfand et al., 2004), which neg- atively relates to performance. Shared felt accountability serves as a behavioral check on the appropriate application of effort and resources. Thus, in a situation in which accountability is low but empowerment is high, empowered managers fail to answer the question: What are we empowered to do? because standards for decisions and behaviors are insufficient. However, when both accountability and psychological empowerment climate are high, managers have clear behavioral standards to guide the application of their resources. For example, Hall et al. (2003) found that the combination of high autonomy and high accountability resulted in decreased job tension and emotional exhaustion, while leading to higher job satisfaction. Thus, shared felt accountability provides guidance to highly empowered managers as to how their work will be evaluated, thus establishing behavioral expectations. Therefore, we propose that shared felt accountability serves as a boundary condition moderating the relationship between psychological em- powerment climate and performance:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Shared felt accountability moderates the psychological empowerment climate–sales (H3a) and service (H3b) relationship such that under high accountability, there will be a more positive relationship, whereas there will be a less positive relationship when accountability is low.
Moderation and Mediation
Building on the hypotheses presented above (Hypotheses 1–3), we expect to find support for a mediated model in which psycho- logical empowerment climate mediates the empowering leadership climate to performance relationship. Furthermore, we also expect felt accountability to moderate this mediated relationship. In es- sence, we propose that shared felt accountability moderates the mediation effect of psychological empowerment climate on the empowering leadership–performance relationship.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Shared felt accountability moderates the mediated relationship between empowering leadership cli- mate and sales (H4a) and service (H4b) via psychological empowerment climate such that when accountability is high, the conditional indirect effect of empowering leadership cli- mate on sales and service is more positive, whereas the conditional indirect effect of empowering leadership on sales and service is less positive when accountability is low.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The participants for this study were assistant and store managers of 116 corporate-owned quick service restaurants in the United States. Restaurants was operationalized as the collective grouping
843EMPOWERMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
mechanism for managers in which each restaurant contained a store manager and several assistant managers. Managers were surveyed over three time periods via an e-mail sent from the corporate office once a month for a period of 3 consecutive months. Of the total 649 stores in the organization, managers from 430 stores responded (response rate of 66%). For the second round, individuals responding from the initial 430 stores were surveyed, yielding responses from managers of 236 stores (54% response rate). The third and final round yielded responses from members in 159 stores participating from the previous rounds (67% response rate). Of the 159 stores in which managers re- sponded over all three periods, 116 stores had complete and usable data and were composed of 539 managers (assistant and store) with at least two assistant managers and one store manager re- sponding from each store. Over the three time periods, the usable overall response rate for assistant and store managers was 24.1% (total potential manager sample was 2,235). The average number of manager responses for each restaurant was 4.7 (range � 3–7). During the first phase of data collection, all managers were asked to complete measures on control variables, whereas only assistant managers completed the empowering leadership measure using the store manager as a referent. Approximately 1 month later at Time 2, assistant managers completed the psychological empowerment climate scale, and then 1 month following this data collection, all managers completed the accountability scale (Time 3). The par- ticipating organization provided store sales numbers for the 2008 fiscal year and mystery customer service shopping scores for the following quarter (3 months later). The final sample was composed of 58.7% females (SD � 0.48), with 38% of the sample between the ages of 21 and 25, 36% between the ages of 26 and 34, and 26% were older than 34.
Measures
Empowering leadership climate. Empowering leadership climate was measured with the 17-item scale developed by Ahearne et al. (2005). The scale includes four different areas including participation in decision making (five items; example item, “My store manager makes many decisions together with me”), meaningfulness of work (four items; example item, “My store manager helps me understand how my objectives and goals relate to that of the company”), confidence in high performance (three items; example item, “My store manager believes that I can handle demanding tasks”), and autonomy from bureaucratic con- straints (five items; example item, “My store manager makes it more efficient for me to do my job by keeping the rules and regulations simple”). The measure uses a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The assistant managers for each store evaluated the respective store manager in regard to his or her empowering leadership behavior.
Psychological empowerment climate. Using only assistant managers, psychological empowerment climate was assessed with Spreitzer’s (1995 12, 1996) 12-item measure. This four- dimensional instrument measures the psychological aspects of empowerment regarding meaning (e.g., “The work I do is very important to me within my store”), competence (e.g., “I am con- fident about my ability to do my job in my store”), self- determination (e.g., “I have significant autonomy in my store in determining how I do my job”), and impact (e.g., “My impact on
what happens in my store is large”). The measure uses a 7-point Likert-type scale rangng from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). The referent was left as the self (i.e., aggregation via direct consensus) due to the isomorphic nature of psycholog- ical empowerment. James et al. (2008) and Chan (1998) discussed that the direct consensus model of aggregation is adequate to capture the notion of a shared psychological climate given that there is sufficient empirical justification for aggregation (e.g., rwg � .70), which is reported in the Results section.
Accountability. The accountability measure, developed by Hochwarter, Kacmar, and Ferris (2003), is composed of eight items assessing manager’s felt accountability at work (Hochwarter, Per- rewe, Hall, & Ferris, 2005). This measure uses a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Ex- ample items include “I am held very accountable for my actions in my store” and “I often have to explain why I do certain things at work.” Both assistant and store managers completed this measure.
Performance. Store sales revenues for the 2008 fiscal year as well as aggregated customer service perceptions for restaurants were obtained. The customers who evaluated the store service performance were hired from a national third-party mystery shop- ping organization. Dimensions on which service was rated include employee appearance, order taking, friendliness, accuracy, and promptness of food arrival. Items evaluating restaurant service are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ( poor) to 5 (excellent). The organization provided the mean of the five service dimensions.
Controls. Organization tenure and gender were controlled for, as research has shown that each is related to service perfor- mance (Ployhart, Wiechmann, Schmitt, Sacco, & Rogg, 2003). Store age in years was also controlled for, as it might relate to sales beyond the control of managers. Using this method might allow us to partial out some store specific revenues (Kacmar, Andrews, Rooy, Steilberg, & Cerrone, 2006). Perceptions of organizational resources (i.e., work design features that help employees achieve goals and reduce job demands; Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005, p. 1218) were controlled for in order to determine whether the focal variables capture unique variance in the present outcomes beyond perceived organizational resources. The scale used for this control variable consists of 11 items along three dimensions: organiza- tional training, job autonomy, and technology using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
Results
Given the potential overlap among our primary variables, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to assess divergent validity. We found that a four-factor model (empowerment climate, empow- ering leadership, accountability, and organizational resources) fit the data well, �2(1169, N �) � 1726.32, p � .05, confirmatory fit index (CFI) � .97, root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA) � .06, standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) � .04. Addi- tionally, all correlations among the four factors were less than .35. Next, we assessed the viability of data aggregation following the recommendations of Bliese (2000): sufficient within-unit homogene- ity, between-unit heterogeneity, and the naturally occurring nature of the unit of analysis, which is the case in the present study. We used the rwg(j) statistic and interclass correlation(1) (ICC[1]) to assess within- unit homogeneity and ICC(2) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess between-unit homogeneity. As shown in Table 1, aggregation
844 WALLACE, JOHNSON, MATHE, AND PAUL
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
indices are supportive of aggregating our data. Next, we examined descriptive statistics for our main effect hypotheses (H1: empowering leadership climate and psychological empowerment climate; H2: psy- chological empowerment climate and performance indices). As shown in Table 2, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were both supported. Also, we examined the relationship between empowering leadership climate (distal predictor) and store performance as a first step in establishing mediation. We found that empowering leadership climate positively relates to sales and service, which initially supports the first step in mediation. We assessed Hypotheses 3 and 4 using multiple moderated regression and tests of conditional indirect effects.
Prior to analyzing the full model, all predictors were mean centered (Aiken & West, 1991). In the model, we first entered our control variables as well as empowering leadership climate in predicting sales (see Table 3) and service (see Table 4). Although empowering leadership climate did not significantly predict either, we moved forward with our models to assess indirect effects. Second, we used the same predictor variables with psychological empowerment climate (the mediator) as the outcome. Empowering leadership climate was a significant predictor (� � .25, p � .05) of psychological empowerment climate. Third, psychological em- powerment climate was shown to be a significant predictor of both sales (� � .21, p � .05) and service (� � .31, p � .05). Next, we controlled for accountability and the fifth model controlled for interactions among our control variables. Accountability was a significant predictor of sales (� � .26, p � .05) and service (� � .26, p � .05), yet no significant control interactions were found. In the last step, we found that our focal interaction between psycho- logical empowerment climate and shared felt accountability was
significant for sales (� � .36, p � .05) and service (� � .26, p � .05). As shown in Figures 2 and 3, low accountability made little difference in performance regardless of psychological empower- ment climate level. Conversely, in stores with high accountability, psychological empowerment climate positively related to both sales and service performance. Tests of simple slopes supported this pattern such that with high accountability, psychological em- powerment climate significantly related to sales (� � .40, p � .05) and service (� � .31 p � .05), but not when accountability was low (� � �.21, p � .05; � � �.17, p � .05). Our results partially support Hypothesis 3 in that there were significant relationships between psychological empowerment climate and sales and ser- vice when accountability was high, but not when accountability was low.
Although it is the most common method for testing mediated models, researchers have pointed out shortcomings of the Baron and Kenny (1986) approach and recommend reporting estimates of the size of the indirect effect and statistical significance tests (e.g., MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) method also allow for testing moderated-mediation in conjunction with indirect effects via bootstrapping. Hence, to further assess the proposed moderated-mediated effects, we tested for conditional indirect effects following the Preacher et al. (2007) method. An assumption of statistical significance tests is that the data are normally distributed. However, indirect effects are likely skewed so the assumption of normality is often untenable. Thus, we derived estimates of the indirect effects, their standard errors, and the bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals around the effects using a bootstrapping method with replacement following the guidelines of Preacher et al. (2007; see also Footnote 1). Previous work has used this approach (e.g., Edwards & Arthur, 2007; Wallace, Edwards, Shull, & Finch, 2009), and research demonstrates that bootstrap methods are more powerful than tra- ditional tests of mediation (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). We estimated 1,000 bootstrap samples in which the independent variable was empowering leadership, the mediator was psychological empow- erment climate, the moderator was shared felt accountability, and the dependent variables were sales and service. In short, this method examines the magnitude of the conditional indirect effects of empowering leadership on store sales and service through psychological empowerment climate across both low and high
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for all Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Psychological empowerment climate 4.36 1.02 .83 2. Group felt accountability 4.68 0.96 .34� .82 3. Store service performance 85.4 8.29 .33� .29� — 4. Store sales 1,572,897 1,271,968 .24� .29� .50� — 5. Organizational resources 3.69 0.61 .25� �.04 .04 .04 .87 6. Empowering leadership climate 5.03 1.54 .39� .05 .18� .12 .16 .91 7. Gender 1.67 0.54 �.13� �.05 .16 �.01 �.05 .23� — 8. Tenure 7.48 2.04 �.05 �.02 .13 .06 �.05 �.36� �.34� — 9. Age of store (in years) 8.80 3.72 .24� .16 .07 .25� �.03 .10 �.13 �.02 —
Note. Alpha reliabilities appear italicized on the diagonal. � p � .05.
Table 1 Aggregation Indices for Variables
Variable rwg(j) ICC(1) ICC(2) F
Empowering leadership climatea .85 .28� .69 2.56�
Psychological empowerment climatea .88 .34� .78 4.12�
Shared felt accountabilityb .88 .22� .67 2.12�
Organizational resourcesb .93 .15� .74 3.01�
Note. rwg(j) performed with normal distribution. ICC � intraclass corre- lation. a dfs � 115, 307. b dfs � 115, 423. � p � .05.
845EMPOWERMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
levels of accountability using bootstrapping. The results shown in Table 5 demonstrate that when accountability is low, the indirect effects of empowering leadership climate on sales and service were nonsignificant. However, when accountability is high, there is a significant and positive indirect effect of empowering leader- ship climate via psychological empowerment climate on store sales (conditional indirect effect � .14, 95% CI � 0.04, 0.21) and store service (conditional indirect effect � .17, 95% CI � 0.07, 0.24).
Discussion
The purpose of this research was twofold. The first was to theo- retically describe and empirically test a form of psychological em- powerment climate, integrating it with empowering leadership cli- mate. The second, and perhaps the more pressing objective of this research, was to examine shared felt accountability as a boundary condition in the empowerment process from a managerial perspective. We discovered positive relationships between empowering leadership climate, psychological empowerment climate, and two indices of performance. We also demonstrated that shared felt accountability significantly moderated this process. Although the present research makes important contributions to the literature on empowerment, perhaps the more interesting contribution is the moderating role of accountability. Managerial accountability is essential to store success, so much so that in the absence of accountability, empowerment does not provide positive benefits. Our findings indicate that positive
benefits from empowerment (structural, via empowering leadership climate and psychological, via psychological empowerment climate) only accrue in the presence of high shared felt accountability. Theo- retically, this study extends previous empowerment research by de- lineating empowerment climate from a shared psychological perspec- tive, distinguishing it from team empowerment and empowering leadership, integrating it with empowering leadership, and by sup- porting accountability as a boundary condition. Hence, empowerment climate appears to be quite meaningful as a shared psychological perception beyond the structural component of empowering leader- ship alone.
Although we were interested in a rather practical question: What happens if managers are empowered but not held accountable? we have identified important implications stemming from the integra- tion of shared felt accountability with psychological empowerment climate. First, future research on psychological empowerment should include accountability to ascertain its relevance across contexts and across organizational levels to increase generalizabil- ity. Second, our results indicate that an organization should implement procedures to develop mutual felt accountability of restaurant managers in an effort to optimize effectiveness. Oth- erwise, individuals who do not feel accountable may take advantage of their empowerment resulting in potential adverse consequences. Future research should address the possibility of these consequences, such as counterproductive work behaviors. Our results also suggest that accountability should also be
Table 3 Results of Moderated-Mediated Regression of Store Sales Performance on Empowering Leadership Climate, Psychological Empowerment Climate, and Felt Accountability
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
IVs and controls to DV
IVs and controls to
mediator (PEC)
Mediator (PEC) controlling IVs
and controls
Controlling for
accountability prior to
interactions
Interactions for control constructs
Focal interaction (PEC � Acct.) controlling for
all other variables
DV � Sales DV � PEC DV � Sales DV � Sales DV � Sales DV � Sales
Predictor Age of store .26� .21� .23� .20� .19 .19 Gender .08 �.14 .10 .09 .07 .02 Tenure .13 .01 .12 .14 .10 .08 Empowering leadership climate .08 .25� .04 .07 .06 .04 Organizational resources .06 .22� .02 .04 .01 .02 PEC .21� .09 .11 .19 Accountability .26� .24� .20 Empowering Leadership �
Organizational Resources �.02 .01 Empowering Leadership �
Accountability �.02 .09 PEC � Organizational
Resources .10 .09 PEC � Accountability .36�
F 1.74 4.43� 1.86 2.57� 1.98� 3.46�
R2 .09 .18 .11 .17 .19 .32 �R2 .09 .18 .02 .06 .02 .13
Note. IV � independent variable; DV � dependent variable; PEC � Psychological empowerment climate; Acct. � Accountability. Effects reported are standardized betas. � p � .05.
846 WALLACE, JOHNSON, MATHE, AND PAUL
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
considered in a more positive frame, as prior research positions accountability as a stressor (Ferris, Mitchell, Canavan, Frink, & Hopper, 1995). However, research suggests that stressors can engender either a hindrance view or a challenge view, with
challenge stressors leading to improved performance (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). It is the responsibility of the unit manager to remove hindrances (e.g., red tape) and provide support for employees to meet challenges (Wallace, Edwards,
Table 4 Results of Moderated-Mediated Regression of Store Service Performance on Empowering Leadership Climate, Psychological Empowerment Climate, and Felt Accountability
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
IVs and controls to DV
IVs and controls to
mediator (PEC)
Mediator (PEC) controlling IVs
and controls
Controlling for accountability
prior to interactions
Interactions for control constructs
Focal interaction (PEC � Acct.) controlling for
all other variables
DV � Service DV � PEC DV � Service DV � Service DV � Service DV � Service
Predictor Age of store .07 .21� .02 .01 .03 .03 Gender .26� �.14 .30� .28� .28� .24�
Tenure .36� .01 .34� .35� .29� .27�
Empowering leadership climate .20 .25� .11 .15 .13 .12
Organizational resources .09 .22� .01 .04 .01 .01 PEC .31� .22� .28� .33�
Accountability .26� .23� .20�
Empowering Leadership � Organizational Resources .12 .13
Empowering Leadership � Accountability .14 .13
PEC � Organizational Resources .15 .13
PEC � Accountability .26�
F 2.97� 4.43� 3.71� 4.04� 3.51� 3.76�
R2 .17 .18 .22 .28 .34 .41 �R2 .17 .18 .05 .06 .06 .07
Note. IV � independent variable; DV � dependent variable; PEC � Psychological empowerment climate; Acct. � Accountability. Effects reported are standardized betas. � p � .05.
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Low PEC High PEC
St or
e Sa
le s
Low SFA
High SFA
Figure 2. Interaction of psychological empowerment climate and shared felt accountability on store sales. High shared felt accountability and psychological empowerment climate are 1 SD, and low shared felt accountability and psychological empowerment climate are –1 SD. PEC � psychological empowerment climate; SFA � shared felt accountability. Both PEC and SFA are collective managerial perceptions.
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Low PEC High PEC
St or
e Se
rv ic
e P
er fo
rm an
ce
Low SFA
High SFA
Figure 3. Interaction of psychological empowerment climate and shared felt accountability on store service performance. High shared felt account- ability and psychological empowerment climate are 1 SD, and low shared felt accountability and psychological empowerment climate are –1 SD. PEC � psychological empowerment climate; SFA � shared felt account- ability. Both PEC and SFA are collective managerial perceptions.
847EMPOWERMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Arnold, Frazier, & Finch, 2009). The importance of these findings is especially salient to service organizations, as cus- tomer perceptions are often created with limited interaction (Susskind, Kacmar, & Borchgrevink, 2003). This makes each employee– customer interaction vitally important in service ex- changes. Because of the unique situation inherent in service work, organizations should attempt to foster an empowering environment by using an integrated approach to empowerment such as the one documented herein.
As with any study, there are limitations of the present research. First, limited interactions with multiple customers and unique employment patterns underlying our sample may not be normal for other industries, thereby limiting the generalizability of the find- ings. Similarly, the source of data was a single organization and from the manager’s perspective, further limiting the applicability of our findings to other contexts. A critical next step to further validate our findings would be to include frontline employees with managers to better capture the “total” empowerment climate. In- cluding all unit members to assess empowerment climate would broaden and enrich this fertile research area. Further fruitful re- search might examine differences in perceptions of empowerment climate across managers and employees and how such differences relate to performance indicators (McKay, Avery, & Morris, 2009).
Future research should also consider applying a longitudinal design in the study of psychological empowerment to increase the internal validity of the relationships tested in the present study. A longitudinal design could further explicate the causal link between psychological empowerment climate and performance outcomes. Additionally, future work could examine resource allocation strat- egies that might further explain the relationship between psycho- logical empowerment climate and performance. Another extension of the present study would be to obtain additional performance ratings from an organizational leader in touch with restaurant managers. Although the use of store sales and third-party customer service evaluations provide relevant insight into unit performance, supervisor evaluations could triangulate the phenomenon of inter- est with existing data (i.e., objective sales, external ratings, internal ratings). Furthermore, formal policies and practices implemented
by organizations to increase shared felt accountability (i.e., struc- tural alignment; Gelfand et al., 2004) should also be considered in empowerment research as well as the potential negative effects of too much accountability. In fact, post hoc we examined this potential. We did not find evidence to support a curvilinear rela- tionship such that the positive relationship we found might actually become negative with additional increases in accountability. This could be due to our sample, and follow-up interviews with man- agers suggested that they do not feel extreme levels of account- ability. However, results of these interviews did suggest that extreme levels of accountability might hurt their performance. We encourage future research to investigate these extensions and hope the present research stimulates future development on empower- ment and accountability.
References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and perfor- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945–955. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.90.5.945
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408 – 437. doi:10.2307/2393374
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349 – 381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm perfor- mance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221. doi:10.2307/20159029
Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Politics as a moderator of the accountability–job satisfaction relation- ship: Evidence across three studies. Journal of Management, 35, 307– 326. doi:10.1177/0149206308318621
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relationships among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composi- tion models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.83.2.234
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 375– 409. doi: 10.1177/1094428105280056
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331–346. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.92.2.331
Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback- seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 92, 202–212. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.202
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471– 482. doi:10.2307/258093
Table 5 Conditional Indirect Effects of Empowering Leadership Climate on Store Performance Indices via Psychological Empowerment Climate � Felt Accountability
Accountability Conditional SE z
DV � Store Sales
Indirect effect Level
High .14 .04 2.24�
Low �.03 .03 �0.48
DV � Store Service Performance
Indirect effect Level
High .17 .04 2.78�
Low .02 .05 0.49
Note. Low � �1 standard deviation; High � 1 standard deviation; DV � dependent variable. � p � .05.
848 WALLACE, JOHNSON, MATHE, AND PAUL
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Corsun, D. L., & Enz, C. A. (1999). Predicting psychological empower- ment among service workers: The effect of support-based relationships. Human Relations, 52, 205–224. doi:10.1177/001872679905200202
Davis, W., Mero, N., & Goodman, J. (2007). The interactive effects of goal orientation and accountability on task performance. Human Perfor- mance, 20, 1–21. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup2001_1
Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational work groups: The role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1084 –1095. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1084
Edwards, B. D., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2007). An examination of factors contributing to a reduction in race-based subgroup differences on a constructed response paper-and-pencil test of scholastic achievement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 794 – 801. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.92.3.794
Enzle, M. E., & Anderson, S. C. (1993). Surveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 257–266. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.257
Fandt, P. (1991). The relationship of accountability and interdependent behavior to enhancing team consequences. Group and Organization Studies, 16, 300 –312. doi:10.1177/105960119101600305
Feldman, M. A. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization Science, 15, 295–309. doi:10.1287/ orsc.1040.0073
Ferris, G. R., Mitchell, T. R., Canavan, P. J., Frink, D. D., & Hopper, H. (1995). Accountability in human resource systems. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum, (Eds.), Handbook of human resource manage- ment (pp. 175–196). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678 – 686. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. Research in Person- nel and Human Resources Management, 16, 1–51.
Gelfand, M. J., Lim, B.-C., & Raver, J. L. (2004). Culture and account- ability in organizations: Variations in forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 135. doi:10.1016/ j.hrmr.2004.02.007
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 199 –267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Perfor- mance, 16, 250 –279. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. (2003). Accountability in human resources manage- ment. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. Neider (Eds.), New directions in human resource management (pp. 29 – 63). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hall, A. T., Royle, M. T., Brymer, R. A., Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2006). Relationships between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: The neutralizing role of autonomy across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 87–99. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.87
Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Gavin, M. B., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Frink, D. D. (2007). Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability– job tension effects on job performance ratings: A longitudinal investi- gation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 226 –239. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.003
Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, C., & Ferris, G. (2003, April). Accountability at work: An examination of antecedents and consequences. Paper pre- sented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organiza- tional Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Negative affectivity as a moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 517–534. doi:10.1002/job.324
Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). The interaction of social skill and organizational support on job perfor- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 482– 489. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.91.2.482
James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C.-H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., & Kim, K.-I. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 17, 5–32. doi:10.1080/13594320701662550
Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Rooy, D. L., Steilberg, R. C., & Cerrone, S. (2006). Sure, everyone can be replaced . . . but at what cost? Turnover as a predictor of unit-level performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 133–144.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Anteced- ents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58 –74. doi:10.2307/256874
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E. (1996). From the ground up: Six principles for building the new logic corporation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effect of empow- erment on job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psy- chology, 76, 27–52. doi:10.1348/096317903321208871
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An expla- nation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764 –775.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106 –129. doi:10.2307/2392745
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 97–108. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.97
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Marsh, W. M., & Ruddy, T. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the influences of employees’ resistance to empowerment. Human Performance, 20, 147–171.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2009). A tale of two climates: Diversity climate from subordinates’ and managers’ perspec- tives and their role in store unit sales performance. Personnel Psychol- ogy, 62, 767–791. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01157.x
Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psycholog- ical approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 153– 180. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00052
Mero, N. M., Guidice, R. M., & Brownlee, A. L. (2007). Accountability in a performance appraisal context: The effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 223–252. doi:10.1177/0149206306297633
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249 –265. doi: 10.2307/259081
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychol- ogy (Vol. 12, pp. 565–593). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
849EMPOWERMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413– 440. doi:10.1348/096317901167460
Patterson, M., Warr, P., & West, M. (2004). Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 193–216. doi:10.1348/096317904774202144
Ployhart, R. E., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J. M., & Rogg, K. (2003). The cross-cultural equivalence of job performance ratings. Hu- man Performance, 16, 49 –79. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1601_3
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing mod- erated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Mul- tivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. (Macro available from http://www.people.ku.edu/ preacher/)
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 90, 1217–1227.
Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1989). Self-identification and ac- countability. In Giacalone, R. A., Rosenfeld, P (Eds.). Impression man- agement in the organization (pp. 21– 43). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empow- erment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332–349.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non- experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho- logical Methods, 7, 422– 445.
Sims, H. P., & Manz, C. C. (1994). The leadership of self-managing teams. In M. M. Beyerlein & D. A. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplin- ary studies of work teams: Theories of self-managing work teams (Vol. 1, pp. 187–221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structure characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2003). Customer service providers’ attitudes relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 88, 179 –187.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297–332.
Tuuli, M. M., & Rowlinson, S. (2009). Empowerment in project teams: A multilevel examination of the job performance implications. Construc- tion Management and Economics, 27, 473– 498.
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, D. M. (2009). Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 254 –262.
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Shull, A., & Finch, D. M. (2009). An examination of tendency to suppress and reappraise emotions on task- related job performance. Human Performance, 22, 23– 43.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, cre- ative process engagement, and intrinsic motivation. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 53, 107–128.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing Jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 587–596.
Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Orga- nizational Behavior, 23, 75–92.
Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: A social network analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 744 –757.
Received September 2, 2009 Revision received October 11, 2010
Accepted November 2, 2010 �
850 WALLACE, JOHNSON, MATHE, AND PAUL
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
