Information Technology

106 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011

FREEDOM AT WORK: PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT AND SELF-LEADERSHIP

John H. Wilson Regent University

ABSTRACT

In spite of much conceptual work, there is a paucity of empirical research into the relationship between the constructs of psychological empowerment and self-leadership. This study examined whether employee psychological empowerment perceptions are related to employee engagement in behavioral and natural rewards self-leadership strategies, and whether these relationships are strengthened for employees with an internal locus of control. The findings demonstrated a significant positive relationship between psychological empowerment and both behavioral and natural rewards self-leadership strategies. Further, internal locus of control was found to moderate this relationship in regards to behavioral self-leadership strategies, but not natural rewards self-leadership.

Keywords: Psychological Empowerment, Self-Leadership, Locus of Control, Organizational Leadership

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been much interest in the extant literature about psychological empowerment, employee assessments about their autonomy in task performance rather than mere choices about how to accomplish assigned tasks (Bordin, Bartram, & Casimir, 2007; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Psychological empowerment differs from role empowerment, also called environmental empowerment, which relates to the effort on the part of organizational executives, to transfer some choices or decision making power from managers to operational- level employees (Labianca, Gray, & Brass, 2000; Logan & Ganster 2007; Meyerson & Kline, 2008). Therefore, role empowerment deals more with granting decision making power and access to resources, while psychological empowerment focuses on the degree that an individual perceives they are empowered.

Prominent authors in the field of empowerment have asserted that self-leadership behaviors are the critical element for effective results in autonomous work environs described in empowerment models (Carson & King, 2005; Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Manz, 1992). For instance, DiLiello and Houghton (2006) suggested that self-leadership has much potential for aiding organizations in responding to new challenges in the 21st century. Likewise, Carson and King (2005) suggested, “empowerment and self leadership are avenues to influence and or improve direction and motivation within organizations by placing greater emphasis on employee mindset and skill development for each individual in the workplace” (p. 1050). Individuals who display self-leadership will seek ways to direct their own activities through behavioral strategies, through natural reward drawn from their work, and through cognitive thought strategies. (Manz & Sims, 1980; Sims & Manz, 1995). The inducement towards empowerment programs in leadership theory and practice seem to hinge on the notion that individuals in a less controlling work environment will have a stronger sense of ownership in the success of the organization (Argyris, 1998; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995). One purpose of this research study

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011 107

was to examine whether employee perceptions of psychological empowerment are positively correlated with employees’ intrinsic motivation to engage in self-leadership behaviors.

In relation to these constructs, locus of control studies have frequently uncovered evidence that individuals who believe that they have significant control over the results of their own performance (internals), will have higher degrees of intrinsic motivation than those who believe success/failure results from factors outside themselves (externals) (Allen, Weeks, & Moffitt, 2005; Rotter, 1966). Sims and Manz (1995) posited that self-leaders motivate and control themselves through independent strategies to influence their own thoughts and behaviors. Given the possible connection between locus of control and self-leadership, this study includes tests to measure the potential moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee self-leadership strategies.

In spite of much conceptual work, there is a paucity of empirical research into the relationship between the constructs of psychological empowerment and self-leadership and the potential that locus of control moderates this relationship. Therefore, this quantitative study was designed to examine whether employee psychological empowerment perceptions are significantly and positively related to employee engagement in behavioral and natural rewards self-leadership strategies. Further, to determine whether these relationships are weaker for employees with an internal locus of control.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Much of the literature on employee empowerment focuses on managerial initiatives designed to transfer some aspect of power or leadership to employees based on the assumption that such transfers will improve employee work performance (D’intino, Goldsby, Houghton, & Neck, 2007; Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998; Walton, 1985). Some authors have used the terms role empowerment or environmental empowerment describing efforts on the part of organizational executives to transfer some choices or decision making power from managers to operational-level employees (Labianca, Gray, & Brass, 2000; Logan & Ganster, 2007; Meyerson & Kline, 2008). However, in recent years the focus of empowerment research in the extant literature has incorporated psychological empowerment, which refers to employee assessments about their autonomy in task performance rather than mere choices about how to accomplish assigned tasks (Bordin, Bartram, & Casimir, 2007; Greasley, et al., 2007; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This is desirable since there is evidence that empowering leadership practices result in higher employee performance (Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2010).

A number of prominent authors in the field of empowerment have asserted that self- leadership behaviors are the critical element for effective results in autonomous work environs such as those described in empowerment models (Carson & King, 2005; Manz & Sims, 1980; Manz, 1992). For instance, Carson and King (2005) suggested, “empowerment and self leadership are avenues to influence and or improve direction and motivation within organizations by placing greater emphasis on employee mindset and skill development for each individual in the workplace”. Individuals who display self-leadership seek ways to direct their own activities through behavioral strategies, through natural rewards drawn from their work, and through cognitive thoughts (Houghton & Neck, 2002; Sims & Manz, 1995). The inducement towards empowerment programs in leadership theory and practice seem to hinge on the notion that individuals in a less controlling work environment will have a stronger sense of ownership in the

108 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011

success of the organization (Argyris, 1998; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Dunphy & Bryant, 1996; Spreitzer, 1995; Williams, 1997).

However, research efforts into the topic of psychological empowerment to date, have not thoroughly investigated the relationship between psychological empowerment and self- leadership. In spite of this paucity of empirical research, authors such as DiLiello and Houghton (2006) have suggested that self-leadership has much potential for aiding organizations in responding to new challenges in the 21st century. The purpose of this research study was to examine whether employee perceptions of psychological empowerment are related to employees engagement in self-leadership behaviors.

It is possible that certain employee characteristics such as locus of control may affect the relationship between empowerment and self-leadership behaviors. Locus of control studies have frequently uncovered evidence that individuals who inherently believe that they have significant control over the results of their own performance (internals), will have higher degrees of intrinsic motivation than those who believe success/failure results from factors outside themselves (externals) (Allen, Weeks, & Moffitt, 2005; Rotter, 1966). Hence, it seems logical to suggest that internals are likely the engage in self-leadership behaviors with less dependency on their level of psychological empowerment. Sims and Manz (1995) posited that self-leaders motivate and control themselves through independent strategies to influence their own thoughts and behaviors. Given this possible connection between locus of control and self-leadership, this study also examined the potential moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee self-leadership strategies.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

While there is a paucity of empirical study into the link between psychological empowerment and self-leadership, there seems to be a logical connection between self-leadership and self-development that suggests a connection between these constructs (Boyce, Zaccaro, & Wisecarver, 2010). Boyce et. al suggested that self-development can be “predicted by both motivation and ability to self-develop”. Houghton and Yoho (2005) suggested a contingency model of leadership intended to identify specific circumstances under which a leader should encourage self-leadership behaviors on the part of followers. These authors asserted that such contingency factors include (a) follower development, (b) situational urgency, and (c) task environment. While Houghton and Yoho presupposed a relationship between psychological empowerment and self-leadership in their conceptual paper, they did not test this assumption empirically.

Houghton and Yoho (2005) further suggested that empowerment is a cognitive state and described self-leadership as a process of employing behavioral and cognitive strategies. It seems more likely that the cognitive state of an individual is likely to influence engagement in a process of strategies, rather than the other way around as Houghton and Yoho have theorized. These authors conceded that there is no empirical evidence to date regarding the directionality of this relationship, other than to suggest that the relationship could be multi-directional. One contribution of this study is to investigate this relationship between psychological empowerment and self-leadership further.

In relation to psychological empowerment, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) identified four cognitive components of intrinsic motivation. These are (a) impact, which relates to expectations of performance outcomes; (b) competence, which relates to expectations of effort-performance;

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011 109

(c) meaningfulness, an expected outcome of intrinsic motivation; and (d) choice, which is the opportunity to make a decision based on the other components. However, the desired outcomes of psychological empowerment go beyond mere intrinsic motivation, and deal with attitudes and behaviors such as job performance, work activities, and organizational commitment (Meyerson & Kline, 2008). Deci & Ryan (1987) proposed that autonomy, as opposed to supervisory control, relates to higher levels of intrinsic motivation, higher degrees of interest in work, flexibility and increased persistence of behavior change. This is consistent with job design theory, which includes five dimensions: (a) skill variety, the variety of skills and talents needed to perform work; (b) task identity, how identifiable a work is as a whole; (c) task significance, the impact of work on the work of others; (d) autonomy, the level of freedom and independence to complete work; and (e) feedback from the job itself, receiving information about performance effectiveness (Hackman & Oldman, 1975). Such patterns are predicated upon an employee’s recognition that there are multiple approaches to particular tasks or problems, and that such individuals will evaluate and choose the option which is best in their circumstance (Martinko, 1982; Vroom, 1964). This is the basis for employee self-leadership behaviors such as redesigning work, changing elements of their physical and cognitive environment, and striving towards self-improvement (Breif & Aldag, 1981; Chen & Chen, 2008; Manz, 1992).

Psychological Empowerment and Self-Leadership

Conger & Kanungo (1988) described power in terms of controlling resources, and employee empowerment as the sharing of this control or the associated authority. These authors distinguished psychological empowerment as the beliefs, expectancies, and motivations of employees in terms of power. Peccei and Rosenthal (2001) identified three conditions for individuals to experience psychological empowerment, (a) an understanding of excellence in terms of their organizational role, (b) the feeling that they have the means and resources to accomplish their work and respond to unexpected adversity, and (c) the perception that they have the autonomy to employ such means and resources. Similarly, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) posited the conditions for perceived empowerment include (a) sense of impact, (b) competence, (c) meaningfulness, and (d) choice. Common among the definitions of psychological empowerment is the notion that individuals feel empowered (Greasley et al., 2007).

Elloy (2005) found that employees who were encouraged to monitor their own performance and to make improvements accordingly (self-leadership strategies), had higher levels of organizational commitment, job satisfaction and organization self-esteem. Since there seems to be a close connection between the consequent attitudes of psychological empowerment with the antecedent attitudes of self-leadership, including job satisfaction and organizational commitment, it seems reasonable to infer a positive relationship between these constructs.

There are varying views of what behaviors or attitudes represent the consequences of psychological empowerment. For instance, Meyerson and Kline (2008) suggested that consequences of psychological empowerment are employee feelings that relate to competence and capability such as the following examples:

1. Feel more satisfied with their work; 2. Are more affectively committed to their organization; 3. Have lower intentions to quit the organization; and 4. Demonstrate more positive work performance than those with lower levels of

psychological empowerment.

110 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011

Similarly, Kirkman and Rosen (1999) found that productivity, customer service, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and team commitment were significantly related outcomes of empowerment. Bordin, Bartram, and Casimir (2007) performed a study into psychological empowerment among Information Technology professional in Singapore. The findings of this study were similar to Kirkman & Rosen’s (1999), that organizational commitment and job satisfaction were significant consequences of psychological empowerment. Likewise, Koberg, Boss, Senjem, and Goodman (1999) produced a model of empowerment that identified meaning, self-determination, competence, and impact as likely consequent cognitions of empowerment. Spreitzer (1995) posited two consequences of psychological empowerment, effectiveness and innovation. Thomas and Velthouse’s (1990) posited that consequent behaviors of psychological empowerment are likely to include activity, concentration, initiative, resiliency, and flexibility. Finally, Zhang and Bartol (2010) found that psychological empowerment had a significant effect on both intrinsic motivation and on employee creativity.

Many of these consequent behaviors associated with psychological empowerment seem to align logically with antecedent behaviors of self-leadership. Two categories of self-leadership identified by Manz and Sims (1995), behavioral and natural rewards, have theoretical connections with these consequences of psychological empowerment. Self-determination, initiative, and intrinsic motivation relate to behavioral self-leadership strategies such as self- monitoring, rehearsal, self-reward, and self-observation (Koberg, et. al, 1999; Manz & Sims, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). In much the same way, consequences of psychological empowerment including work/job satisfaction, organization/team commitment, positive work performance, and meaning relate to natural rewards strategies such as focusing on how work (a) increases competence, (b) contributes to a larger purpose, or (c) increases the social connectedness between the individual and their team or organization (Bordin, et. al, 2007; Chen & Chen, 2008; Manz & Sims, 1991; Meyerson & Kline, 2008; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Koberg, et. al, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).

Employee self-leadership is employee engagement in strategies of self-direction and self- motivation to improve performance including intentional behaviors, recognizing natural rewards inherent to a job, and/or deliberate opportunity thinking (Breif & Aldag, 1981; Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Luthans & Davis, 1979; Manz, 1992, Manz & Sims, 2001; Neck & Manz, 1996; Politis, 2006). Manz and Sims (1995, 2001) described three strategies of such self-leadership often applied to tasks that in some cases are not inherently appealing, (a) behavior-focused, (b) natural rewards, and (c) cognitive focused. Behavior focused self-leadership strategies involve actions that an individual takes to support or promote improved performance such as self-goal- setting, self-observation, self-reward or punishment, cuing strategies such as a change in physical work environment, and rehearsal. Alternatively, natural reward strategies involve finding recompense from the task or work itself rather than an external source, which is uniquely characteristic to the specific individual. Finally, cognitive strategies involve individuals taking control of the way that they think in order to improve performance. Since there does not seem to be a strong theoretical connection between psychological empowerment and cognitive self- leadership strategies, the focus of this study was behavioral and natural rewards strategies of self-leadership.

Consequences of psychological empowerment related to behavioral self-leadership strategies include initiative, intrinsic motivation, and self-determination (Koberg, et. al, 1999; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). For example, Peccei and Rosenthal (2001) found that by extending more autonomy to employees during customer interactions, refraining

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011 111

from censure when errors occurred, allowed self-corrective feedback in the absence of supervisory control. Such self-corrective feedback is consistent with Manz and Sims’ (2001) behavioral self-leadership strategies.

Consequences of psychological empowerment related to natural rewards self-leadership strategies include work/job satisfaction, organizational commitment, low intent to quit, work performance, and meaning (Bordin, Bartram, & Casimir, 2007; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman, 1999; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). For example, Koberg et al. (1999) found that employing a natural rewards-oriented focus on aspects of work that is most rewarding is likely to help individuals to motivate themselves towards excellence even with less desirable tasks. Further, Manz & Sims, (2001) found that job satisfaction was positively correlated with psychological empowerment, which is consistent with the notion of natural rewards stemming from the task or job itself could cause individuals to have more positive feelings about their work (p. 95). Organizational commitment in the form of affective commitment relates to individuals who are committed to their organization because the genuinely like working there (Cohen & Hudecek, 1993; Fields, 2002). This is congruent with the natural rewards strategy of self-leadership that involves an individual deriving motivational influence from their tasks (Manz & Sims, 2001). Koberg et al. (1999) described meaningfulness as the link between the work objectives and their personal values such that they believe in what they are doing, which is directly related with the “feelings of purpose” (Manz & Sims, 2001) attribute of the natural rewards strategy of self-leadership. Finally, regarding intrinsic motivation, Deci and Ryan (1987) asserted that intrinsically motivated individuals derive enjoyment from opportunities to stretch their capabilities and reaching their potential in much the same way as behavioral strategies of self-leadership.

Lee and Koh (2001) found that self-leadership, as a construct, is distinct from psychological empowerment because the self-leader does not necessarily believe they have impact on organizational outcomes, which is a key dimension of empowerment. Since self- leadership may be distinct from psychological empowerment, it is reasonable to consider how one might correlate with the other. Since there is theoretical support for psychological empowerment as an antecedent to employee behavioral and natural rewards self-leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Manz, 1992), the following was offered as the first hypothesis for this study:

Hypothesis 1a. Psychological empowerment will be positively related to the use of behavioral strategies of employee self-leadership behaviors. Hypothesis 1b. Psychological empowerment will be positively related to the use of natural rewards strategies of employee self-leadership behaviors.

The Moderating Effects of Locus of Control

Rotter (1966) described locus of control as “the attempts of people to better their life

conditions, that is, to control their environment in important life situations” (p. 19). This author found that an individual’s level of internal versus external locus of control relates proportionately to their likelihood to strive overtly towards achievement. Rotter cited an earlier study by Rotter and Mulry (1965), which found that those with an internal locus of control (internals) responded

112 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011

more quickly to chance instructions, while those with external locus of control (externals) responded more quickly to skill instructions.

Zhang and Bartol (2010) found a correlation between psychological empowerment and creativity, but simultaneously found that not all employees desired the same degree of empowerment. This suggests that other factors may have influenced the relationship between psychological empowerment and sought-after outcomes. In support of locus of control as one such factor, Jha & Nair (2008) found that locus of control was positively correlated with psychological empowerment. This suggests that individuals with internal locus of control might have a higher propensity to feel empowered in their workplace.

While there has been very little empirical research into whether locus of control is a moderator between psychological empowerment and self-leadership, there seems to be evidence in support of this hypothesis. For instance, Chen and Chen (2008) hypothesized that locus of control had a moderating effect between psychological empowerment and organizational commitment, an antecedent to self-leadership. While their findings did not support their hypothesis, they expressed concern that the questionnaire used for their study failed to distinguish sufficiently between locus of control and psychological empowerment and recommended further research into this relationship. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) found that that there is a strong link between locus of control and proactive behavior, resilience, and “measures of emotional adjustment”, which are consistent with self-leadership. Based on findings such as these, locus of control was included in this study as a potential moderator between psychological empowerment and self-leadership.

Since there is theoretical support to suggest that locus of control increases the likelihood that an individual will take initiative to improve their circumstances whether or not they experience psychological empowerment (Rotter, 1966; Thomas & Velthouse, 1996; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), the following hypotheses are offered regarding the moderating effects of locus of control:

Hypothesis 2a. Locus of control acts as a moderator between psychological empowerment and employee behavioral self-leadership strategies such that for employees who are ‘internals’, the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee engagement in behavioral self-leadership strategies will be less strong than for those employees who are ‘externals’. Hypothesis 2b. Locus of control acts as a moderator between psychological empowerment and employee natural rewards self-leadership strategies such that for employees who are ‘internals’, the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee engagement in natural rewards self-leadership strategies will be less strong than for those employees who are ‘externals’.

Control Variables: Tenure, Age, and Supervisory Capacity

To reduce the likelihood that employee experience, age, or supervisory capacity would confound the relationship between psychological empowerment and self-leadership behaviors, these were included in the model as control variables. Carmeli, Meitar, and Weisberg (2006) found that job tenure is a necessary control variable for self-leadership because greater longevity in a particular job is strongly connected with expertise, problem solving, and job focus. Therefore, controlling for tenure will help to isolate the relationship between psychological

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011 113

empowerment and employee self-leadership behaviors. Regarding age, Politis (2006) found a significant correlation between age and self-leadership, suggesting the importance of controlling for this variable as well.

METHODS

Sample and Data Collection:

The respondent group for this study consisted of employees working for a privately held, mid-sized software company with 645 employees (N=645) based in the Northeastern U.S.A. A sample of three hundred employees (n=300) was randomly selected from the total employee population using the random number generation function in the Decision Analyst STATS 2.0 software. An administrator from the target organization sent an e-mail to selected employees asking that they participate in the survey. There were 171 (57%) responses, of which 144 (48%) were complete and valid. Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) recommend between 15-20 survey respondents for each independent variable within a study to achieve sufficient statistical power. There were five independent variables for this study including control variables: psychological empowerment, locus of control, age, tenure, and supervisory capacity. Therefore, the 144 responses satisfied the minimum requirement of 100 responses needed to achieve statistical power.

Measures

The survey instrument consisted of an existing, validated scale for each of the study variables to be tested. The instrument for the independent variable, psychological empowerment, was Spreitzer’s (1995) empowerment at work scale, a 12-item questionnaire using a seven-point Likert scale. This instrument measures employee beliefs about their level of empowerment at work in relation to their intrinsic motivation associated with four cognitions about their role, meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995). Fields (2002) reported the reliability of each of the components of the scale based on coefficient alpha values including “.81 to.87 for meaning, .76 to .84 for competence, .79 to .85 for self-determination, and .83 to .88 for impact”. Spreitzer (1995) tested the instrument as a combined measure for psychological empowerment in the industrial and insurance market segments, which produced Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients of .72 and .62, respectively (p. 1453). Gagne, Senecal, and Koestner (1997) asserted the validity of this scale based on the “distinctive pattern of relations to distal organizational factors, such as sociopolitical support and organizational culture”. They validated the questionnaire by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm the fit with empowerment theory, which produced acceptable results. Coefficient alpha for the psychological empowerment data collected for this study were .96, well above the minimum acceptable threshold of .70 (Hair, et. al, 2010).

The dependent variable for this study was self-leadership, in the form of two specific dimensions, behavioral and natural rewards self-leadership. The instrument used to measure this was Houghton and Neck’s (2002) 35-question multidimensional self-leadership scale. The questionnaire employs a five-point Likert scale, divided into three segments. The first segment tests for behavior-focused strategies, the second tests for natural rewards strategies, and the third for cognitive strategies. The authors reported reliability of the included sub-scales related to

114 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011

behavioral and natural rewards self-leadership to range in alpha values between .74 and .93, which are higher values than previously developed instruments for self-leadership. Since the cognitive strategies of self-leadership were not a focus of this study, the 12 items associated with this dimension were omitted (1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 14, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29, & 33). For the behavioral dimension of the scale, the Cronbach’s alpha scale for the data from this study was .94. For the 5-item natural rewards self-leadership dimension, Cronbach’s alpha values for the data collected in this study was .90.

Duttweiler’s (1984) 28-question Internal Control Index was used to measure internal versus external locus of control as a moderator with a five-point Likert scale. Duttweiler tested the instrument in two environments, which produced coefficient alpha values of .84 and .85. Consistent with Duttweiler’s findings, Cronbach’s alpha for the response data in this study was .84

There is empirical evidence in behavioral sciences research that individuals tend to respond to self-report survey items in line with what they perceive to be socially acceptable responses (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Podsakoff, MacKensie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Since this survey was in a self-report format, Strahan and Gerbasi’s (1972) parsimonious 10-item MC-10 (2) version of the Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale was incorporated in order to control for this form of common method variance. Strahan and Gerbasi tested the MC-10 (2) under four diverse circumstances, which produced reliability coefficients between .49-.75. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale in this study was .77.

RESULTS

The study data was analyzed using the SPSS version 17 software package. Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the study variables.

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations among the Indicator Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Behavioral SL 3.73 .61 1.00

2. Natural Rewards SL

3.78 .76 .61** 1.00

3. Age 2.48 .64 .01 .06 1.00

4. Tenure 3.08 1.27 -.13 .02 .33** 1.00

5. Supervisor 1.76 .44 .20* .29** .11 .02 1.00

6. Social Desirability 3.01 .44 .42** .34** .14 .07 .17* 1.00

7. Psychological Empowerment

5.59 .85 .31** .36** .23** .10 .01 .33** 1.00

8. Locus of Control 2.27 .47 .38** .33** .03 -.03 .23** .37** .22** 1.00

*p < .05, **p < .01

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011 115

There was a significant correlation between psychological empowerment and both self- leadership strategies, with .31 for behavioral self-leadership and .36 for natural rewards self- leadership. Pallant (2007) recommended a minimum level of .3. Two control variables, supervisory capacity and social desirability were both found to be significantly correlated with behavioral and natural rewards self-leadership. Finally, locus of control was found to be correlated with behavioral and natural rewards self-leadership, with social desirability, and with psychological empowerment.

Hierarchical regression was employed in order to assess whether there was a significant relationship between the independent variable, psychological empowerment, and employee engagement in both behavioral and natural rewards strategies of self-leadership after controlling for age, tenure, supervisory capacity, and social desirability. Behavioral Self-Leadership Psychological empowerment correlated sufficiently with the dependent variable, behavioral self-leadership, which exceeded Pallant’s (2007) minimum recommended limit of .3 with the value of .31. Further, all variables had bivariate correlations less than .7, Pallant’s (2007) recommended maximum limit.

There was no significant correlation between behavioral self-leadership and age (r = .01, n.s.) or tenure (r = -.13, n.s.). However, there is a significant correlation between behavioral self- leadership and two control variables, supervisory capacity (r = .20, p <.01) and social desirability (r = .66, p < .01). The independent variable, psychological empowerment, was significantly correlated with the dependent variable, behavioral self-leadership (r = .59, p < .01). Also noteworthy is that the control variable, social desirability, was significantly correlated with psychological empowerment. Partial correlation analysis was used to explore this relationship between psychological empowerment and behavioral self-leadership, while controlling for the scores from Strahan and Gerbasi’s (1972) Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale MC-10(2). Prior to controlling for social desirability, the Pearson r-value for the relationship between psychological empowerment and behavioral self-leadership was .64. After controlling for social desirability, the value was reduced to r = .34. Similar analysis on the remaining control variables including age, tenure, and supervisory position, produced only nominal changes to the relationship between psychological empowerment and behavioral self-leadership.

Table 2 shows the hierarchical multiple regression model as a whole. According to the R squared change values, the control variables explained 22% of the variance in behavioral self- leadership. In Model 2, psychological empowerment was added to the model as the predictor variable. The predictor variable explained 5% of the variance in behavioral self-leadership strategies. The results showed that psychological empowerment was a significant predictor of behavioral self-leadership strategies, F (5, 138) = 9.87, p < .0001. This demonstrates that psychological empowerment was significantly and positively correlated with behavioral self- leadership. Hence, Hypothesis 1a was accepted.

116 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011

Table 2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Behavioral Self-leadership (N=144)

Unstandardized Standardized Behavioral Self-Leadership R Square

Change B SE β

Model 1 .22 (Constant) 1.94 .38 Age -.01 .08 -.01 Tenure -.08 .04 -.16* Supervisor .19 .11 .14 Social Desirability .56 .11 .41**

Model 2 .05 (Constant) 1.38 .41 Age -.05 .08 -.05 Tenure -.08 .04 -.17* Supervisor .21 .10 .15* Social Desirability .46 .11 .33** Psychological Empowerment

.17 .06 .23**

*p < .05, **p < .01

Locus of Control as Moderator – Behavioral Self-Leadership

Hypothesis 2a stated that locus of control would have a moderating effect on the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee engagement in behavioral self- leadership strategies. Barron and Kenny (1986) described moderators “as variables that affect the direction and/or strength of the relationship between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable” (p. 1174). In order to test locus of control as a moderator between psychological empowerment and behavioral self-leadership in this study, an interaction variable was computed to represent the interaction between psychological empowerment and locus of control, and was then included in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis as step 3, for comparison purposes. In this analysis, the control variables accounted for 22% of the F Change (p < .0001) in the model, psychological empowerment and locus of control accounted for 8.1% of the F change beyond the control variables (p < .01), and the interaction between psychological empowerment and locus of control accounted for an additional 6.2% F change (p < .0001). Since the interaction between the moderator and independent variable produced a significant negative change in behavioral self-leadership, locus of control is a moderator between these two variables. As Figure #1 illustrates, the relationship between perceived empowerment and behavioral self-leadership is less strong among respondents with an internal locus of control and stronger among those with an external locus of control. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was accepted.

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011 117

Figure 1

Plot of the Interaction between Locus of Control and Psychological Empowerment in Predicting Behavioral Self-Leadership

Natural Rewards Self-Leadership

Psychological empowerment correlated sufficiently with the dependent variable, natural rewards self-leadership, which exceeded the minimum recommended limit of .3 with a value of .36. Further, all variables had bivariate correlations less than .7, the recommended maximum limit.

A partial correlation was used to explore this relationship between psychological empowerment and natural rewards self-leadership, while controlling for the scores from Strahan and Gerbasi’s (1972) Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale MC-10 (2). Prior to controlling for social desirability, the Pearson r-value for the relationship between psychological empowerment and natural rewards self-leadership was .63. After controlling for social desirability, the value was reduced to .37. Similar analysis on the remaining variables, age, tenure, and supervisory position, produced only nominal changes to the relationship between psychological empowerment and natural rewards self-leadership.

Table 3 shows the hierarchical multiple regression model for natural rewards self- leadership as a whole. According to the R squared change values, the control variables explain 17% of the variance in natural rewards self-leadership. Further, the independent variable, psychological empowerment, explains 8% of the variance in natural rewards self-leadership strategies. Therefore, the results show that psychological empowerment is a significant predictor of natural rewards self-leadership strategies, F (5, 138) = 9.18, p < .0001. This demonstrates that psychological empowerment was significantly and positively correlated with natural rewards self-leadership. Hence, Hypothesis 1b is accepted.

Locus of Control as Moderator – Natural Rewards Self-Leadership

Hypothesis 2b stated that locus of control would have a moderating effect on the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee engagement in natural rewards self-leadership strategies. In order to test locus of control as a moderator between psychological

118 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011

empowerment and natural rewards self-leadership in this study, an interaction variable was calculated to represent the interaction between psychological empowerment and locus of control. Further, this interaction variable was added into the hierarchical multiple regression analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and natural rewards self-leadership as Step 3. Upon comparing the results, the control variables accounted for 17% of the F Change (p < .0001), psychological empowerment and locus of control accounted for an additional 10% of the F change beyond the control variables (p < .0001). However, the interaction between psychological empowerment and locus of control accounted less than 1% of the additional F change, and was not significant. Since the interaction between the moderator and independent variable failed to produce a significant change in natural rewards self-leadership, locus of control was not found to be a moderator between these two variables. Hence, Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Natural Rewards Self-Leadership (N=144)

Unstandardized Standardized Natural Rewards Self-Leadership R Square

Change B SE β

Model 1 .17 (Constant) 1.47 .48 Age -.01 .10 -.01 Tenure -.00 .05 -.00 Supervisor .41 .14 .24** Social Desirability .52 .14 .30**

Model 2 .08 (Constant) .56 .52 Age -.07 .10 -.06 Tenure -.00 .05 -.01 Supervisor .44 .13 .26** Social Desirability .36 .14 .21** Psychological Empowerment .27 .07 .30**

*p < .05, **p < .01

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study affirmed the hypotheses that there is a positive and significant relationship between psychological empowerment and two dimensions of self-leadership, behavioral self-leadership and natural rewards self-leadership. These findings are significant for organizational leaders considering internal policies that allow employees more freedom and autonomy in their work since such changes are likely to increase employee psychological empowerment (Argyris, 1998; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Greasley et. al, 2008; Spreitzer, 1995). If the desired outcome from expanding freedom and autonomy among employees is that such individuals engage in strategies of self-leadership, then these findings provide empirical support for this approach. Further, the findings of this study contribute to the literature related to psychological empowerment as it offers another potential consequence, self-leadership strategies, for inclusion in future research.

Behavioral strategies of self-leadership have the potential to replace some or many of the traditional managerial responsibility of monitoring and controlling the activities of their

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011 119

subordinates (Manz & Sims, 1980; Manz & Sims, 2001; Sims & Manz, 1995; Politis, 2006). Examples of behavioral self-leadership strategies involve self-monitoring, self-cuing in the physical work environment, self-observation, goal-setting, and self-reward or punishment (Sims & Manz, 1995). It seems logical to conclude that when employees effectively take on such strategies, then supervisory efforts to monitor and/or directly control the activities of such employees would be redundant in most cases.

Employee engagement in natural rewards self-leadership strategies could potentially replace many aspects of extrinsic motivation that have historically been the responsibility of their supervisor, recognizing that extrinsic motivators such as financial incentives and rewards are still important as hygiene factors (Koberg et. al, 1999; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). If natural rewards strategies of self-leadership can facilitate such motivating effect, and if employees with higher levels of psychological empowerment are more likely to engage in such strategies, then the empirical findings of this study provide support in favor of transferring aspects of motivation from the supervisor to the employee.

LIMITATIONSOF THIS STUDY

A limitation of this study is that the research site consisted of employees working for one company in one industry. This represents an external validity threat on the basis of an interaction of setting (Cresswell, 2009). Additional data is needed from other companies or respondents in order to confirm whether these findings could be generalizable to other organizations or sectors.

Another limitation is that the results of the study focused on two dimensions of self- leadership, behavioral and natural rewards strategies. Due to the omission of the third dimension of Houghton and Neck’s (2002) self-leadership measure, the results of this study are not applicable to general self-leadership.

RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Since the focus of this study was behavioral and natural rewards strategies, there is no

data related to cognitive strategies of self-leadership. Further research into the relationship between psychological empowerment and self-leadership that includes the cognitive dimension of self-leadership would allow for conclusions related to general self-leadership in addition to the two dimensions included herein.

Locus of control was found in this study to moderate the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee engagement in behavioral self-leadership strategies, such that for those with an internal locus of control, the relationship between psychological empowerment and behavioral self-leadership strategies was stronger. There do not seem to be any previous empirical studies that examined the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between psychological empowerment and self-leadership. As a result, this finding represents a contribution to the literature related to psychological empowerment, self-leadership, and locus of control. Future research is needed to examine this relationship more closely. In addition, locus of control was not found to moderate the relationship between psychological empowerment and natural rewards self-leadership strategies. Therefore, future research into the relationship between locus of control and self-leadership may provide additional insight into why this effect seems to be isolated to behavioral rather than natural rewards strategies of self- leadership.

120 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011

REFERENCES

Allen, D. G., Weeks, K. P., & Moffitt, K. R. (2005).Turnover intentions and voluntary turnover: The moderating roles of self-monitoring, locus of control, proactive personality, and risk aversion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5): 980-990. doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.90.5.980

Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76(3):

98-105. 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(6): 1173-1182.

Bordin, C., Bartram, T., & Casimir, G. (2007). The antecedents and consequences of

psychological empowerment among Singaporean IT employees. Management Research News, 30(1): 34-46.

Boyce, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Wisecarver, M. Z. (2010). Propensity for self-development of

leadership attributes: Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader self-development. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 159-178. doi:10.1016

Breif, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1981). The “Self” in work organizations: A conceptual review. The

Academy of Management Review, 6(1): 75-88. Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at

work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1): 75-90. Carson, C. M., & King, J. E. (2005). Leaving Leadership: Solving leadership problems through

empowerment. Management Decision, 43(7/8): 1049-1053. Chen, H., & Chen, Y. (2008). The impact of work redesign and psychological empowerment on

organizational commitment in a changing environment: An example from Taiwan's state- owned enterprises. Public Personnel Management, 37(3): 279-302. doi: 1557973391

Cohen, A., & Hudecek, N. (1993). Organizational commitment-turnover relationship across

occupational groups. Group & Organization Management, 18(2): 188-213. doi: 480369 Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and

practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3): 471-482. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of

psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 24(4): 349-354.

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011 121

D’Intino, R. S., Goldsby, M. G., Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2007). Self-leadership: A

process for entrepreneurial success. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4): 105-120.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.

Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 53(6): 1024-1037. DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Maximizing organizational leadership capacity for the

future :Toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4): 319-337. doi: 1074215341

Dunphy, D., & Bryant, B. (1996). Teams: Panaceas or prescriptions for improved

performance? Human Relations, 49(5): 677. doi: 9628344 Duttweiler, P. C. (1984). The Internal Control Index: A newly developed measure of locus of

control. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 209-221. Elloy, D. F. (2005). The influence of superleader behaviors on organization commitment, job

satisfaction and organization self-esteem in a self-managed work team. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1/2): 120-127. doi: 833147471

Fields, D. L. (2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational

research and diagnosis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Gagne, M., Senecal, C. B., & Koestner, R. (1997). Proximal job characteristics, feelings of

empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: A multidimensional model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(4): 1222-1240. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01803.x

Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A. Soetanto, R., & King, N. (2008). Employee

perceptions of empowerment. Employee Relations. 27(5): 354-368. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 60(2): 159-170. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th

ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Hardy, C., & Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment: Implications for

research and practice. Human Relations, 51(4): 451-483. Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The revised self-leadership questionnaire: Testing

hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(7/8): 672-691.

122 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011

Houghton, J. D., & Yoho, S. K. (2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and psychological empowerment: When should self-leadership be encouraged? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(4): 65-83. doi: 903599131

Jha, S., & Nair, S. (2008). Influence of locus of control, job characteristics and superior-

subordinate relationship on psychological empowerment: A study in five star hotels. Journal of Management Research, 8(3): 147-161. doi: 1967148181

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences

of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1): 58-74. Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes

of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group & Organization Management. 1999, 24(1).

Labianca, G., Gray, B., & Brass, D. J. (2000). A grounded model of organizational schema

change during empowerment. Organizational Science, 11(2): 235-257. Lee, M., & Koh, J. (2001). Is empowerment really a new concept? International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 12(4): 684-695. doi: 10.1080/09586190110037344 Logan, M. S., & Ganster, D. C. (2007). The effects of empowerment on attitudes and

performance: The role of social support and empowerment beliefs. Journal of Management Studies. 44(8): 1523-1550

Luthans, F., & Davis, T. R. V. (1979). Behavioral self-management: The missing link in

managerial effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 8(1): 42-60. Manz, C. C. (1992). Self-Leadership . . . The Heart of Empowerment. The Journal for Quality

and Participation, 15(4): 80-86. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1980). Self-leadership as a substitute for leadership: A social

learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5(3): 361-367. Manz, C., & Sims Jr., H. (1991). SuperLeadership: Beyond the Myth of Heroic Leadership.

Organizational Dynamics, 19(4): 18-35. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1995). Businesses without bosses: How self-managing teams are

building high-performing companies. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (2001). The new Superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Martinko, M. J. (1982). Learned helplessness: An alternative explanation for performance

deficits. Academy of Management Review, 7(2): 195-204.

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011 123

Meyerson, S. L., & Kline, T. J. B. (2008). Psychological and environmental empowerment: Antecedents and consequences. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 29(5): 444-460.

Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self-leadership: the impact of mental strategies

training on employee cognition, behavior, and affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 445-467.

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Peccei, R., & Rosenthal, P. (2001). Delivering customer-oriented behavior through

empowerment: An empirical test of HRM assumptions. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6): 831-857.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKensie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases

in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and

prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531-544. Politis, J.D. (2006). Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team performance :The

mediating influence of job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(3): 203-216. doi : 1073422221

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generilized expectations for internal versus external contron of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1): 1-28. Rotter, J. B., & Mulry, R. C. (1965). Internal versus external control of reinforcement and

decision time. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2(4): 598-604. doi: 10.1037/h0022473

Sims, H. P., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Company of heroes: Unleashing the power of self-leadership.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,

measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1442-1465. Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne

Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(2): 191-193. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An

“interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation, Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 666-681.

124 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2011

Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2010). Empowering leadership: An examination of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure, The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3): 530-542. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.014

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review,

63(2): 77-84. Williams, S. (1997). Personality and self-leadership. Human Resource Management Review, 7(2):

139-155. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowerment leadership and employee creativity:

The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1): 107-128.

About the Author: John H. Wilson is a published author, motivational speaker, and business professional with 15 years experience in the software & services industries. He holds a B.S. in Marketing from Messiah College, a Masters in Business Administration from Pennsylvania State University and is presently a doctoral student in the PhD of Organizational Leadership program at Regent University.