Psychological empowerment and organizational commitment: An empirical

study of software programmers in India

First Author

Dr. Y Rama KrishnaHead, Dept. of Business ManagementAristotle Post Graduate CollegeII floor, Diamond HouseHimayathnagar, HyderabadAndhra Pradesh, India – 500 029.Ph. +91-40-3022 8744Ph + 91-40-2712 2648Ph 98496 39393yramphd@yahoo.com

Psychological empowerment and organizational commitment: An empirical

study of software programmers in India

1

1

Abstract

This study examines the validity and reliability of Menon’s (2001) psychological empowerment

instrument in a culturally diverse Indian context. It also examines the invariability of the

instrument amongst male and female groups. Furthermore, the study examines the relationship

between individual dimensions of psychological empowerment, and affective and normative

commitment. Empowered employees are hypothesized to exhibit higher levels of commitment.

Two hundred and thirty five software programmers completed the Menon’s psychological

empowerment and Meyer and Allen’s commitment questionnaires. Contrary to Menon’s

findings, in Indian context Perceived Competence emerged as first factor followed by goal

internalization, and perceived control in principal component analysis. Confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA) revealed the factor structure similar to the one reported by Menon (2001). CFA

also confirms the invariability of the instrument among male and female groups. Results suggest

a significant and positive relationship among psychological empowerment, affective

commitment and normative commitment. However, no significant relation was found between

perceived competence subscale and affective commitment. Implications of theory and practice

are discussed.

Introduction

In recent years, the concept of empowerment has become a buzzword in management circles and

gained prominence as an individual level initiative. Its origins are in issues raised in the era of

employee involvement symbolized by participative management, managerial practices such as

employee self-management (Shipper & Manz, 1992), and sharing power and responsibility with

team members (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). “Yet, until recently, the literature has lacked

consensus on a definition or operationalization of empowerment in the workplace” (Spreitzer,

2

2

Kizilos, and Nason, 1997). Spreitzer (1995a) for the first time developed and validated a multi-

dimensional measure of psychological empowerment in a work context. Several empirical

studies were conducted using Spreitzer multi-dimensional construct to measure psychological

empowerment. Menon (2001) developed and validated another multi-dimensional measure of

psychological empowerment “as a logical next step in the research direction suggested by

Conger and Kanungo (1988).” Despite of these multiple measures, a little empirical work has

been done on empowerment. Furthermore, there has been little rigorous research on its

antecedents, and its consequences (Menon, 2001).

Definitions

Psychological Empowerment

A working definition of psychological empowerment can be proposed as follows: the

psychologically empowered state is a cognitive state characterized by a sense of perceived

control, competence, and goal internalization. Empowerment is thus considered a multi-faceted

construct reflecting the different dimensions of being psychologically enabled, and is conceived

of as a positive additive function of the three dimensions.

Perceived Control includes beliefs about authority, decision-making latitude, availability of

resources, and autonomy in the scheduling and performance of work, etc.

Perceived Competence reflects role-mastery, which besides requiring the skillful

accomplishment of one or more assigned tasks, also requires successful coping with non-routine

role-related situations.

Goal Internalization dimension captures the energizing property of a worthy cause or exciting

vision provided by the organizational leadership.

Affective Commitment (AC): The degree of an employee’s emotional attachment to,

identification with, and involvement in the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). AC is defined as

the employee's emotional attachment to the organization. As a result, he or she strongly identifies

3

3

with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a part of the organization. The employee

commits to the organization because he/she "wants to".

Normative Commitment (NC): The degree to which an employee feels some sense of

obligation to remain with an organization. The individual commits to and remains with an

organization because of feelings of obligation. For instance, the organization may have invested

resources in training an employee who then feels an obligation to putforth effort on the job and

stay with the organization to 'repay the debt.' It may also reflect an internalized norm, developed

before the person joins the organization through family or other socialization processes, that one

should be loyal to one's organization. The employee stays with the organization because he/she

"ought to".

Literature review

In recent times, “organizational researchers and business practitioners have focused increasing

attention on psychological empowerment in the workplace” (Spreitzer, Janasz, and Quinn, 1999,

p. 511). This observation of Spreitzer et., al. is supported by Menon (2001, p. 154) who, look at

workplace empowerment as “the major new industrial weapon against domestic and international

threats.” This growing interest in employee empowerment is the result of studies conducted in

leadership and management skills (Bennis & Nanus, 1985), power and control (Kanter, 1979),

and team building (Beckhard, 1969). These studies suggest that employee empowerment is a

principal component of managerial and organizational effectiveness, and plays a crucial role in

team development and maintenance (Conger & Kanungo, 1988, p.471).

Empowerment has been defined by Conger & Kanungo (1988, p. 474) as “a process of

enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of

conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organizational

practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information.” Thomas & Velthouse

(1990) further developed the general approach to empowerment taken by Conger & Kanungo.

Thomas & Velthouse argued that empowerment is a multifaceted, and defined it more broadly as

4

4

“increased intrinsic task motivation” manifested in a set of four cognitions reflecting an

individual’s orientation to his or her work role: impact, competence, meaning, and choice

(Spreitzer, 1995). Impact is seen as “making a difference” in terms of accomplishing the purpose

of the task (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 672). Competence is an individual’s ability to

perform task activities skillfully (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 672). Meaning is the value of

the task goal or purpose. Judged in relation to the individuals own ideals or standards (Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990, p. 672), while Choice is “causal responsibility for a person’s actions” (Thomas

& Velthouse, 1990, p. 673).

Spreitzer (1995) operationalized Thomas & Velthouse’s multi-dimensional conceptualization

and began the process of construct validation. Several studies have been conducted using

Spreitzer’s empowerment measurement. Although Spreitzer’s (1995, 1996) measure assess

multiple dimensions of empowerment, “it does not tap into that aspect of empowerment that is

related to inspiring leadership or an exciting organizational vision” (Menon, 2001, p.175).

Menon (2001) developed a new instrument to measure psychological empowerment. Menon’s

15-item, three component instrument attempts to capture feelings of goal internalization,

perceived control, and perceived competence (Menon, 2001, p. 161).

Earlier studies related psychological empowerment to access to information and resources, role

ambiguity (Spreitzer, 1996), effectiveness, work satisfaction, and job related strain (Spreitzer,

Kizilos, and Nason, 1997). Menon (2001) relates psychological empowerment to organizational

commitment, job involvement, and citizenship behavior. Bhatnagar (2005) also relates the

psychological empowerment to organizational commitment.

Majority of the previous research examined how an overall empowerment composite relates to

various outcomes, but we have little understanding regarding if and how each of the individual

dimensions contributes to the expected outcomes of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1997). In addition,

as these measures have been developed in North America and establishing universal applicability

requires their validation in other cultural settings (Dimitriades, 2005). Earlier studies on

empowerment failed to validate the invariability of these measures amongst male and female

groups.

5

5

This study examines the validity and reliability of Menon’s psychological empowerment

instrument in the Indian context and also validates the invariability of the instrument amongst

male and female groups. It also examines the relationships between each of the individual

dimensions of Menon’s empowerment measure and Meyer and Allen’s affective and normative

commitment.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Employee psychological empowerment subscales will be positively related

to affective commitment.

Hypothesis 2: Employee psychological empowerment subscales will be positively related

to normative commitment.

Organizational context

The software industry, which is a main component of the Information Technology (I T) sector,

has brought tremendous success to the Indian economy. India's young aged manpower is the key

behind this success story. According to National Association of Software Service Companies

(NASSCOM) report, as of the year 2004-05, both software and services revenue grew by 32

percent to $ 22 billions and $ 28.5 billions in 2005-06. This credit goes to technical young people

and English-speaking scientific professionals.

In India, software companies are known for high salaries, performance based pay, high

incentives, flexible working hours, state of the art technologies, and faster career growth. Despite

of these facilities I T companies are witnessing higher attrition rate. Attrition rate in these

companies is between 15 and 20 percent. Human resource managers in these companies are

devoting most of their time to design strategies to minimize attrition, and to enhance

commitment amongst employees.

METHODMeasures

Psychological Empowerment

6

6

Psychological empowerment was measured using the nine-item scale developed by Menon

(2001). Respondents were asked to use a six-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to

“strongly agree” to report on perceived level of empowerment. (Table 2 describes scale items).

Organizational Commitment

Affective and Normative commitment was assessed using Meyer and Allen’s (1997)

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). Affective commitment denotes a sense of

belonging and emotional attachment to the organization (e.g., “I would be very happy to spend

the rest of my career with this organization”). Normative commitment denotes the individual’s

obligation to remain with the organization (e.g., “I owe a great deal to my organization”). Items

were anchored by a five-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Sample and Data Collection

Questionnaires were distributed to 500 software programmers working in 7 software

development companies located in Hyderabad, India. Of the 7 companies, 4 are Indian and 3 are

U S based IT companies having their software development centers (SDC) in Hyderabad.

Questionnaires from 261 respondents were returned. Of the 261 questionnaires, 235 were found

to be valid, for a useable response rate of 47 percent.

Out of a total of 235 respondents, 57.8 percent were male. In terms of nature of employment 59.1

percent were permanent employees and the rest were employed on contract basis. 57 percent had

bachelor’s level education and 43 percent had master’s degrees. The mean age of the sample was

25.4 years old (S. D = 4.6) and the average job tenure was 2.4 years (S .D = 1.8).

Validity and Reliability Analysis

Item analysis and correlation: The descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix are as shown

in Table 1. Items within each subscale significantly correlated with each other (mean r = .63).

These correlations are shown in bold in Table 1. On the other hand, as expected, the items from

dissimilar subscales had relatively low correlations with each other (mean r = .21).

7

7

Means, Standard Deviations, and intercorrelations----------------------------------

TABLE 1 about here-----------------------------------

Factor structure of Menon’s psychological empowerment in India

A principal component analysis with varimax rotation (Table 2) yielded three factors with

eigenvalues greater than 1. A screeplot before the analysis supported the factor solution.

Bartlett’s test of spherity was significant, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling was

acceptable (.73). In total, the three factors accounted for 75.7% of the variance. The first factor

explained 39.8% of the variance and this factor covered all items of Perceived Competence

(COMP) scale. The second factor consisted of Goal Internalization (GI) scale, explaining 20.3%

of the variance, and the third factor consisted of Perceived Control (PC) scale, explaining 15.5%

of the variance. As can be seen from Table 2, the items in each subscale have high loadings on

their respective components and relatively low loadings on the other two factors. All the three

subscale had acceptable alpha reliabilities: competence (.88), goal internalization (.85), and

perceived control (.75).

Principal Component Analysis Results (Factor Loadings)----------------------------------

TABLE 2 about here-----------------------------------

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). To test the factor structure of the psychological

empowerment measure a CFA using LISREL (Version 8.72; Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2005) was

conducted with correlation matrix as input. Conventional fit statistics provided in the LISREL

output were used to assess fit: Chi-square with degrees of freedom, the goodness-of-fit (GFI), the

Normed-fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA). A good fit to the data is indicated by non-significant chi square, GFI,

NFI, and CFI 0.9 and higher, and a RMSEA under 0.10.

The three factor model that was reported by Menon (2001) was confirmed in this study. Fig. 1

shows the results of a CFA. The resulting fit indices were as follows: chi square (χ2 =38.4, d.f.

8

8

24), goodness-of fit index (GFI) = .96, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .93, Normed fit

index (NFI) = .97, Comparative fit index (CFI) = .99, and root-mean-square error approximation

(RMSEA) = .05.

----------------------------------FIGURE 1 about here

-----------------------------------

To validate the invariability of factor structure of three factor psychological empowerment model

between male and female sample, a group level CFA was performed using LISREL. Fig. 2

shows the results of group level CFA. The resulting fit indices were as follows: chi square

(χ2=77.5, d.f. 60), goodness-of fit index (GFI) = .92, Normed fit index (NFI) = .93, Comparative

fit index (CFI) = .98, and root-mean-square error approximation (RMSEA) = .05. Results show

that the model is invariant of gender differences.

----------------------------------FIGURE 2 about here

-----------------------------------Hypotheses Testing

Correlation and hierarchical regression (Cohen and Cohen 1978) analyses were conducted to test

the hypotheses. First, hypotheses were tested with correlation analysis; to test these hypotheses

further, regression analysis was used. With hierarchical regression, perceived competence was

initially entered into the regression equation for each outcome (dependent) variable, followed by

perceived control, and then by goal internalization. This three step procedure was employed to

ascertain the nature of relationship between each of the three psychological empowerment

measures and commitment and also to determine the unique variance contributed by each of

them. This ordering of independent variables was utilized to understand employees felt

empowerment at individual, departmental and organizational level.

Correlation analysis results

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations among the psychological

empowerment subscales and affective and normative commitment. As expected, goal

internalization and perceived control are significantly and positively correlated with affective

and normative commitment. Perceived competence is significantly and positively correlated only

9

9

with normative commitment. Contrary to hypotheses no significant relation is found between

perceived competence and affective commitment.

Correlation coefficients between psychological empowerment and Commitment

----------------------------------TABLE 3 about here

-----------------------------------

Regression analysis results

To test further H1 and H2, hierarchical regression was employed. Table 4 shows the hierarchical

regression results. When analyzing the results with this method, particular attention was given to

the beta coefficients, R2, and change in R2 at each step. The beta coefficients suggest that

affective commitment accrues from goal internalization (.33) and perceived control (.17).

Normative commitment is also explained by goal internalization (.28) and perceived control

(.25).

Goal Internalization: Goal internalization dimension was found to be positively related to

affective commitment (β = .33, p < .001), and normative commitment (β = .28, p < =.001).

Earlier, Menon (2001) reported similar results between goal internalization and affective

commitment (β = .65, p < =.001). In addition, goal internalization explained significant variance

above and beyond perceived control and perceived competence dimensions in predicting

affective commitment.

Perceived Control: Perceived control was found to be significantly related to normative

commitment (β = .25, p < =.001), and to a lesser extent with affective commitment (β = .17, p <

=.01).

Perceived Competence: This study does not find any significant relationship between perceived

competence and commitment.

Regression analysis results----------------------------------

TABLE 4 about here-----------------------------------

General discussion

10

10

The present study confirms the universal applicability of Menon’s psychological empowerment

measure. Results report the invariability of the measure in diverse cultural setting and in male

and female gender groups. Consistent with previous research, present study suggests that goal

internalization and perceived control have significant positive relation with affective and

normative commitment. Individual dimensions of goal internalization and perceived control

augments the organizational commitment. However, no significant relation was found between

perceived competence and commitment. This may be because of dynamics prevailing in Indian

software industry, where poaching best brains available in the market is rule of the day. In

addition, success or failure of the software company largely depends on the quality of the work

force that they possess. Because of this, competent employees are having multiple job

opportunities in hand, and are always looking for the “better” opportunity.

Contrary to Menon’s (2001) findings, in the present research perceived competence emerged as

the first factor in the principal component analysis, followed by goal internalization and

perceived control. This may be due to the data collected from highly skilled and educated

software programmers, for whom competence is a primary requirement to perform their job.

Competence items were also reported high mean scores and little variance (Comp 3 = 5.65, SD =

.49; Comp 1 = 5.58, SD = .54; Comp 2 = 5.57, SD = .59).

Practical implications of these results are: to foster organizational commitment managers need to

internalize the corporate goals and has to create an environment, where employees should feel a

sense of control over resources and decision making. Again, since the competent employees are

always looking for better opportunities, managers should provide training and development to

these employees, by doing this normative commitment can be enhanced among the employees.

Limitations and directions for future research

This study examines the relationship between empowerment and its consequences, in future

studies must concentrate on the antecedents of empowerment. The present study does not

consider the influence of demographic variables on empowerment and organizational

11

11

commitment. In future, studies should measure the impact of demographic variables like age,

gender, education, nature of employment and work experience on empowerment and also on

outcome measures. To further strengthen the theoretical foundations of psychological

empowerment, there is need to conduct the longitudinal studies. In present research, data were

collected from single industry. To establish the psychometric properties of the psychological

empowerment measurement, future studies must examine the validity of the instrument by

collecting data from different industries. Future research should also consider in comparing and

contrasting the factor structure of the psychological empowerment with data collected from

different countries.

References

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 1-18.

12

12

Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development strategies and models. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley.

Bennis. W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. New York, Harper & Row Bhatnagar, J. 2005. The power of psychological empowerment as an antecedent to organizational

commitment in Indian managers. Human Resources Development International, 8 (4): 419-433.

Cohen, J. & P. Cohen. (1975). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

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

Dimitriades, Z. S. (2005). Employee empowerment in the Greek context. International Journal of Manpower, 26(1): 80-92.

Kanter, R.M. (1979). Power failures in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57(4): 65-75.

Menon, S.T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50 (1): 153-180.

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shipper, F., & Manz, C.C. (1992). Employee self-management without formally designated teams: An alternative road to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, winter, 48-61

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in workplace: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2): 483-504.

Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A., & Nason, S.W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5): 679-704.

Thomas, K.W., & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “Interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 666-68.

TABLE 1Means, Standard Deviations, and intercorrelations

MeanStd. Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

GI4 4.91 0.88

13

13

GI1 4.92 0.86 .74(**)GI2 5.16 0.77 .58(**) .64(**)PC1 4.80 0.92 .22(**) .23(**) .27(**)PC4 4.47 1.03 .26(**) .27(**) .24(**) .56(**)PC2 4.29 1.27 .24(**) .26(**) .25(**) .31(**) .64(**)COMP3 5.65 0.49 .22(**) .25(**) .30(**) .19(**) .15(*) .17 (**)COMP1 5.58 0.54 .19(**) .24(**) .19(**) .18(**) .13(*) .09 .69(**)COMP2 5.57 0.59 .22(**) .24 (**) .26(**) .23(**) .17(**) .13(*) .65(**) .83(**)

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

TABLE 2Principal Component Analysis Results (Factor Loadings)

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3COMP1: I have the skills and abilities to do my job well .93 .09 .05COMP2: I have the competence to work effectively .90 .12 .11COMP3: I have the capabilities required to do my job well .83 .17 .10GI1: I am inspired by the goals of the organization .13 .89 .14GI4: I am inspired by what we are trying to achieve as an organization .09 .87 .14GI2: I am enthusiastic about working toward the organization’s objectives .15 .80 .16PC4: I can influence decisions taken in my department .05 .13 .90PC2: I have the authority to make decisions at work .02 .16 .78PC1: I can influence the way work is done in my department .17 .12 .72Eigenvalue 3.59 1.83 1.39% Variance (Cumulative) 39.8 60.2 75.7

14

14

G I

P C

COMP

.33

.17

.30

COMP 1 .94

COMP 2 .89

COMP 3 .74

PC 2 .65

PC 4 .97

PC 1 .58

GI 1 .91

GI 2 .72

GI 4 .82

GI Goal InternalizationPC Perceived ControlCOMP Perceived Competence

Fig. 1

G I

P C

COMP

.33

.19

.30

COMP 1 .93

COMP 2 .89

COMP 3 .74

PC 2 .65

PC 4 .98

PC 1 .59

GI 1 .91

GI 2 .71

GI 4 .82

GI Goal InternalizationPC Perceived ControlCOMP Perceived Competence

Fig. 2

15

15

TABLE 3Correlation coefficients between psychological empowerment and Commitment Mean S D GI PC COMP ACSGI 4.99 .74

PC 4.52 .89 .37(**)

COMP 5.60 .49 .28(**) .24(**)

ACS 3.81 .84 .38(**) .23(**) .04

NCS 3.98 .77 .39(**) .32(**) .17(**) .41(**)

** p < 0.01

TABLE 4Regression analysis results

Regression Step Dependent Variables

Affective Commitment Normative Commitment1. Perceived Competence

2. Perceived Competence Perceived Control

3. Perceived Competence Perceived Control Goal Internalization

(F value)*** p < 0 .001, ** p < 0.01

BetaR2

BetaBetaR2

Δ R2

BetaBetaBetaR2

Δ R2

.01-.00

-.04 .27***

.06 .07 ***

-.12 .17**

.33***

.16 .09 ***

14.64***

.16

.03

.10 .34***

.14 .11 ***

.03 .25***

.28***

.20 .06 ***

19.18***

16

16