EFFECT ON JOB SATISFACTION AND JOB STRESS

EFFECT ON JOB SATISFACTION AND JOB STRESS

Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

February 4, 2018

JOYCE VAN ZENDEREN Student number: 2195445

Dordogne 16 3831 EK Leusden tel.: +31 (0)6-28684931

e-mail: j.van.zenderen@student.rug.nl

Supervisor

S. Feenstra

Abstract

To date, much research has been done into the beneficial consequences of empowerment, while little attention has been paid to the negative side effects of empowerment. There are definitely also negative consequences of applying empowerment which deserve – further – investigation. In addition, very little to no research has been done on moderators that could affect the consequences of empowerment. I replicated previous research by studying the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction, such that more empowerment would lead to more job satisfaction. I also replicated previous research by studying the relationship between empowerment and job stress, such that more empowerment would lead to less job stress. In addition, I extended on previous research by studying the moderating effect of need for closure on job satisfaction and job stress, such that employees with higher need for closure would perceive less job satisfaction and more job stress when there is more empowerment. Based on a sample of almost 90 participants from one organization, I only found support for the replicated investigations I did. This paper ends with a discussion about the theoretical and practical implications of this research, and with suggestions for future research.

Key words:

Empowerment; job satisfaction; job stress; need for closure

Introduction

The traditional hierarchical organisational models of earlier times do not match anymore with the current dynamic environment (Bowen & Lawler, 1992; Collins, 1995; Ford & Fottler, 1995; Forrester, 2000; Mills & Ungson, 2003; Waterman, 1987). One way to deal with these dynamic times is to apply employee empowerment in organisations (Mills & Ungson, 2003).

Employee empowerment is defined as the initiative whereby employees have more responsibilities (Haugh & Talwar, 2016) and more access to resources (Keller & Dansereau, 1995; Nielson, 1986).

Because empowerment could help dealing with dynamic times, applying empowerment became a trend over the last decade (Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004).

Over the last few decades many organisations have realised that employee empowerment is a good way to deal with the current dynamic environment (Mills & Ungson, 2003) and that it has many beneficial consequences for organisations and employees. Studies in leadership and management showed that empowering subordinates is an important component of organisational effectiveness (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kanter, 1979; Kanter, 1983; Keller & Dansereau, 1995;

McClelland, 1975). Examples of investigated beneficial outcomes for employees are increased job satisfaction (Seibert et al., 2004) and decreased job stress (Spreitzer, Kizilos & Nason, 1997).

To date, however, research has particularly focused on identifying the beneficial consequences of empowerment, while little attention has been paid to the negative side effects of empowerment (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). There are definitely also negative consequences associated with applying empowerment which deserve – further – investigation. For example, job stress perceived by employees (Hatcher & Laschinger, 1996). This is associated with the idea that not all employees have a positive attitude to empowerment initiatives (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001;

Lorinkova, Pearsall & Sims, 2013; Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013; Sharma & Kirkman, 2015;

Yagil, 2002; Yun, Cox & Sims, 2006). It is important not to forget or underestimate the negative

side effects because empowerment has great influence on the effectiveness and performance of organisations (Keller & Dansereau, 1995; Tannenbaum, 1968), and the performance and satisfaction of employees (Liden, Wayne & Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997;

Thomas & Tymon, 1994).

If we take a look at the positive and negative consequences mentioned above, it looks like a contradicting story: I say that empowerment is associated with decreased job stress and increased job stress. However, I think that the consequences of empowerment are partly dependent of employee characteristics. Because employees have different characteristics and different needs. To date, little research has been done on the moderators of empowerment consequences. However, these influences should not be forgotten or underestimated because I think that employee characteristics can partly determine whether a consequence will be positive or negative. So I propose that need for closure moderates the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction and job stress.

I think that especially employees’ need for closure plays an important role in this regard.

Employees with a high need for closure have the need for definite answers and clarity, rather than uncertainty, ambiguity, and confusion (Acar-Burkay, Fennis & Warlop, 2014; Kosic, Kruglanski, Pierro & Mannetti, 2004; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). However, empowerment can lead to higher perceived employee ambiguity (Humborstad & Kuvaas, 2013). So for an employee with a high need for closure, empowerment may be associated to less job satisfaction and more job stress.

And for an employee with a low need for closure, empowerment may be associated with more job satisfaction and less job stress.

The present research has two aims. First, the present research aims to replicate previous research by showing that more empowerment is associated with more job satisfaction (Hill, Kang

& Seo, 2014; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian & Wilk, 2001b; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian &

Wilk, 2004; Liden et al., 2000; Seibert et al., 2004; Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Thomas

& Tymon, 1994) and is associated with less job stress (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Second, the present research aims to extend previous research by showing that need for closure moderates the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction, such that empowerment is associated with increased job satisfaction when need for closure is low, while empowerment is associated with decreased job satisfaction when need for closure is high. In addition, it aims to extend previous research by showing that need for closure moderates the relationship between empowerment and job stress, such that empowerment is associated with decreased job stress when need for closure is low, while empowerment is associated with increased job stress when need for closure is high.

The present research has important theoretical implications. The first theoretical implication is that this study seeks to replicate previous findings. According to different scholars, such replication is important because it strengthens the confidence in the validity of earlier observed relationships (Asendorpf, Conner, De Fruyt, De Houwer, Denissen, Fiedler & Nosek, 2013; Eden, 2002; Feenstra, Jordan, Walter, Yan & Stoker, 2017; Jasny, Chin, Chong & Vignieri, 2011). In addition, replication promotes knowledge accumulation because it makes clear what the boundaries are of such effects and what the scope is of such effects (Asendorpf et al., 2013; Eden, 2002;

Feenstra et al., 2017; Jasny et al., 2011).

The second theoretical implication is that this research takes into account employee

characteristics by studying need for closure as a moderator of the empowerment-job satisfaction

interaction and the empowerment-job stress interaction. I seek to illustrate that employee

characteristics can partly determine whether consequences of empowerment are positive or

negative and that differences in the degree of presence of this employee characteristic should be

considered to better understand the interaction between empowerment and job satisfaction and job

stress.

The present research also has important practical implications. The first practical implication is that when managers understand that need for closure can influence the outcomes of empowerment, they can take this into account when they have to decide whether or not to apply empowerment in their organisation and to what extent. They can investigate to what extent need for closure is present in the organisation and base their decisions concerning applying empowerment on the outcome of this investigation.

The second practical implication is that when managers already applying empowerment to a certain extent, they can investigate what degree of need for closure is a match with their degree of empowerment. They can use this information when they have to hire new employees in the future. The match between the degree of empowerment and the employee characteristics will be important for both the employee and the employer. For the employee, a good match will probably lead to higher job satisfaction and less job stress, which in turn for the employer leads to higher organisational effectiveness and performance.

Theory Consequences of Empowerment

Empowerment is described as the initiative whereby employees are given access to resources (Keller & Dansereau, 1995; Nielson, 1986), and whereby employees come into the position where they are more responsible for making more choices and decisions (Haugh & Talwar, 2016). So employees’ decision-making authority will increase (Gandz & Bird, 1996). In this way, also their organisational influence (Gandz & Bird, 1996) and sense of self-worth increases (Keller

& Dansereau, 1995; Nielson, 1986). Within empowerment there are four dimensions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Hill et al., 2014; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990). Meaning is a judgment that someone’s work has value, competence is a belief

someone is able to successfully perform work tasks, self-determination is a perception that

someone is free to choose how to carry out work tasks, and impact is a belief in someone’s ability to influence organisational outcomes (Hill et al., 2014; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

Kanter (1977) proposed a theory which stated that empowerment would lead to higher job satisfaction. Multiple researchers define job satisfaction as “an attitude that reflects the extent to which an employee evaluates certain aspects of his or her job as beneficial to him or her” (Diestel, Wegge & Schmidt, 2014; Hausknecht, Hiller & Vance, 2008; Schleicher, Watt & Greguras, 2004).

Aspects of the job could be co-workers, career opportunities, working conditions, the supervisor, and the organisation itself. Kanter’s theory is used by many other researchers (e.g. Laschinger et al., 2004). Also according to other authors, empowerment leads to higher job satisfaction. For example, Spreitzer et al. (1997) assume that empowerment leads to more decision-making authority, which in turn leads to higher job satisfaction. And based on different studies (e.g.

Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Kraimer, Seibert & Liden, 1999; Liden et al., 2000), Seibert, Wang and Courtright (2011) propose in their study that job satisfaction could be an outcome of empowerment because empowered work is likely to fulfil intrinsic needs for growth and autonomy.

In addition, Seibert et al. (2011) assume that employees experience higher job satisfaction when they have more autonomy to make decisions, are better able to express their interests and values, and when their work is meaningful, has impact and is a good match with their skills (Hill et al., 2014).

These contentions that empowerment would lead to higher job satisfaction are showed by multiple empirical studies of among others Laschinger et al. (2001b), Laschinger et al. (2004), Liden et al. (2000), Seibert et al. (2004), Seibert et al. (2011), Spreitzer (1995), Spreitzer et al.

(1997), Thomas and Tymon (1994), and Zhang and Bartol (2010). Seibert et al. (2011) found in

their study that “empowerment can be influenced by a range of contextual variables and individual traits and is in turn associated with important employee attitudes and work behaviors”.

Another outcome of empowerment is decreased job stress (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Job stress is viewed as a negative phenomenon for organisations and their employees (Xie & Johns, 1995) and is defined as an emotional experience that is associated with nervousness, tension, (Cooke &

Rousseau, 1984; Hunter & Thatcher, 2007), sense of time pressure, anxiety, and work-associated worries (Hunter & Thatcher, 2007); also described as ‘strain’ (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984; Hunter

& Thatcher, 2007; Van Dyne, Jehn & Cummings, 2002).

Seibert et al. (2011) used the theory that empowerment would lead to lower job stress.

Earlier, this theory was also used by different other researchers (e.g. Karasek, 1979; Spector, 1986).

According to Karasek (1979) and Spector (1986), when employees have more perceived control, their job stress will be lower: the control over potential stressors decreases job stress. So their expectation was that empowered employees – who have more responsibility (Haugh & Talwar, 2016) and decision-making authority (Gandz & Bird, 1996) – would show a lower stress level.

The studies of among others Karasek (1979) and Seibert et al. (2011) showed that empowerment indeed would led to lower job stress. According to Seibert et al. (2011), their research outcomes were consistent with Karasek’s (1979) outcomes (Seibert et al., 2011). They found in their study that “more empowered individuals reported lower levels of strain”.

As a first step, the present research aims to replicate previous research on two outcomes of empowerment. Specifically, the present research aims to show that:

Hypothesis 1a: Empowerment is positively related to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1b: Empowerment is negatively related to job stress.

The Moderating Effect of Employees’ Need for Closure

Employees are humans with different needs and characteristics. One of these characteristics is the need for closure. Recent research suggests that need for closure will have a moderating effect on the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction, and empowerment and job stress.

This is a potential effect because empowerment can create situations which are unpleasant for people with high need for closure, which in turn may influence the degree of satisfaction and stress.

Need for closure is described as the chronic or temporary desire of a person for definite answers to questions, rather than confusion, uncertainty, or ambiguity (Kosic et al., 2004;

Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). People with a high need for closure want to avoid or resolve uncertainty and ambiguity (Kosic et al., 2004; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). This need for closure varies across individuals and situations (Kosic et al., 2004). The strength of the need for closure is dependent on the benefits associated with possessing closure and the costs of lacking it (Kosic et al., 2004) This strength is assumed to vary along a continuum from high need for closure at one end to avoid closure at the other end (Acar-Burkay et al., 2014; Kosic et al., 2004). The perception of these benefits and costs are a function of the person, the situation, or both. (Kosic et al., 2004).

The degree of the need for closure influences the way a person feels or thinks (Kosic et al., 2004). A high need for closure is expressed by a greater cognitive impatience, impulsiveness, rigidity, reduced information processing, aversion to ambiguity characteristics of new situations (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996), seeking for immediate and permanent answers (Kosic et al., 2004), and rapidly searching for concrete and rigid judgment (Acar-Burkay et al., 2014; Kruglanski &

Webster, 1996; Mayseless & Kruglanski, 1987). Compared to people with high need for closure,

people with low need for closure process information in a more elaborative way, engage more in

complex thinking, are more open to different sources of informational input, and suspend judgment

until they have processed all available information (Acar-Burkay et al., 2014; Kruglanski &

Webster, 1996; Mayseless & Kruglanski, 1987).

Empowerment can create situations which are experienced as unpleasant by employees with high need for closure. For example, when empowerment is applied in organisations, employees have more to say in what they are doing and how they want to do it (Gandz & Bird, 1996). In this way, employees experience a higher level of freedom in their way of working compared to employees working in structured workplaces. However, employees with high need for closure will not feel comfortable with this freedom because they prefer immediate and permanent answers, and guidelines how to get to those answers (Kosic et al., 2004). Another unpleasant situation for employees with a high need for closure, is when empowerment leads to higher role ambiguity (Humborstad & Kuvaas, 2013) and higher role overload (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). Employees with high need for closure experience these situations as unpleasant because they feel the need to avoid or reduce any form of ambiguity (Kosic et al., 2004; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996) and hence strive for complete clarity.

Research has shown that ‘having more to say in the organisation’ (Spreitzer et al., 1997) is a factor that lead to higher job satisfaction. However, because empowerment can create situations in which a high-need-for-closure-person will not feel comfortable, high need for closure could influence the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction. Thus, experiencing a lot of freedom – caused by applying empowerment – will probably lead to lower job satisfaction when an employee has a high need for closure. In addition, multiple authors have stated and showed that job stress is caused among others by role ambiguity and role overload (e.g. Lepine, Podsakoff &

Lepine, 2005; Podsakoff, Lepine & Lepine, 2007). So because high role ambiguity and high role

overload will make a high-need-for-closure-person feel uncomfortable, it is possible that high need

for closure could influence the relationship between empowerment and job stress. Thus,

experiencing a high level of role ambiguity and a high level of role overload – caused by applying empowerment – will probably lead to higher job stress when an employee has a high need for closure.

The second step of the present research is to extend previous research on the outcomes of empowerment. Specifically, the present research aims to show that:

Hypothesis 2a: Empowerment and need for closure interact to influence job satisfaction, such that empowerment is associated with increased job satisfaction when need for closure is low, while empowerment is associated with decreased job satisfaction when need for closure is high.

This implies that need for closure will negatively affect the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction. Empowerment and need for closure interact with each other, and as a result job satisfaction is influenced. When employees’ need for closure is high, empowerment leads to lower job satisfaction. And when employees’ need for closure is low, empowerment leads to higher job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2b: Empowerment and need for closure interact to influence job stress, such that empowerment is associated with decreased job stress when need for closure is low, while empowerment is associated with increased job stress when need for closure is high.

This implies that need for closure will positively affect the relationship between

empowerment and job stress. Empowerment and need for closure interact with each other, and as

a result job stress is influenced. When employees’ need for closure is high, empowerment leads to

higher job stress. And when employees’ need for closure is low, empowerment leads to lower job

stress.

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

Method Procedure and Participants

In total, 88 participants participated and filled in the online questionnaire at home within 48 hours, after starting it. I asked 90 people to participate so there was a response rate of 97%.

After excluding some participants, 83 participants remained (92% response rate). I excluded participants from whom I missed values, who answered all the questions with the same answer, who used the full 48 hours to complete the questionnaire, or who completed the questionnaire in only a few minutes.

The people who voluntarily participated in this research are all working at the same

healthcare centre in the Netherlands. 57.80% was woman and 42.20% was men. The age of the

participants ranged from 17 to 65 years, with an average age of 37.78 years (SD = 13.70). The job

tenure of this group ranged from 0.5 to 25 years, with an average job tenure of 5.54 years (SD =

5.76). Most of the participants obtained a HBO diploma (48.20%), followed by participants with a

MBO diploma (39.80%) and participants with a WO diploma (12%). All participants were

informed in advance about the goal of the research, what to do during the research, and about the

fact that the results were anonymous and would be treated confidentially.

Measures

Empowerment was measured with a 3-item scale derived from Spreitzer’s 12-item scale

(1995). This is a stable and reliable measurement of empowerment (Spreitzer et al., 1997), and is often used by other researchers (e.g. Hill et al., 2014; Seibert et al., 2004). This scale measured the self-determination aspect of empowerment. Example items are “I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job”, and “I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job”. The Cronbach alpha for self-determination was .81. I also measured the impact aspect of empowerment, derived from Spreitzer’s 12-item scale (1995). Example items are “My impact on what happens in my department is large”, and “I have significant influence over what happens in my department”. The Cronbach alpha for impact was .82. In addition, I used a 3-item scale derived from Ahearne, Mathieu and Rapp (2005), which measured fostering participation.

Example items are “My managers make many decisions together with me”, and “My manager often consults me on strategic decisions.” The Cronbach alpha for fostering participation was .78. I measured all items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Need for closure was measured with a 15-item scale taken from Roets and Van Hiel (2011).

Within this measurement I measured different dimensions: preference for order (e.g. “I find that a well ordered life with regular hours suits my temperament”), intolerance of ambiguity (e.g. “I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways”), preference for predictability (e.g. “I do not like situations that are uncertain”), closed mindedness (e.g. “I do not usually consult many different opinions before forming my own view”), and decisiveness (e.g. “When I have made a decision, I feel relieved”). I measured all items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha for need for closure was .86.

Job satisfaction was measured with a 6-item scale derived from the Job Description Index

(Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969). Example items are “I find my work fascinating” (work on the

present job) and “I think the job I do is pleasant” (the job in general). I measured all items on a 7- point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha for job satisfaction was .81.

Job stress was measured with a 10-item scale taken from Gillespie and Numerof (1984).

Example items are “I am fed up with my job”, “I feel that everything is caving in at work”, and “I feel unable to get out from under my work”. I measured all items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha for job stress was .88.

Control variables. I included gender, education, and job tenure as control variables because they were likely to be related with the relationships in this study. I included gender because Kanter (1977) has argued that women feel less empowered in organisations because of their status.

I also included educational level because employees with higher levels of education are likely to feel more empowered (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Further, I included job tenure because employee’s attitudes can be influenced by the length of time that they have been in their job (e.g. Avolio, Waldman & McDaniel, 1990; Hill et al., 2014; Natarajan & Nagar, 2011). I chose these measures because they “actively try to conceptualize and measure those variables that may serve as potential confounds” (Mitchell, 1985).

Results Preliminary Analysis

The descriptive statistics and the bivariate correlations are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender 1.42 .50

2. Educational level

1.72 .67 -.01

3. Job tenure 5.55 5.76 -.05 -.18

4. Self-

determination

5.54 .97 .06 .10 .12

5. Impact 3.89 1.02 .28* -.16 .11 .32**

6. Fostering participation

4.40 1.38 .06 -.01 -.06 .19 .28*

7. Need for closure

4.26 .92 -.17 -.09 -.02 -.27* -.09 .00

8. Job satisfaction

5.67 .86 .05 .08 .20 .47** .06 .12 - .20

9. Job stress 1.84 .79 .07 .01 -.04 -.19 -.04 .03 .06 - .32**

N = 83.

p < .05,

p < .01.

Hypothesis 1a predicted a positive relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction.

As explained in the method section, I used three subscales to measure empowerment. In support of

hypothesis 1a, self-determination (r = .47, p < .01) was positively associated with job satisfaction.

However, impact (r = .06, p = .57) and fostering participation (r = .12, p = .29) were not associated with job satisfaction. So the measurement of self-determination supports hypothesis 1a, and the measurement of impact and fostering participation did not support hypothesis 1a.

Hypothesis 1b predicted a negative relationship between empowerment and job stress. In support of hypothesis 1b, self-determination (r = -.19, p = .09) was negatively associated with job stress. Self-determination has such a low p-value that I can assume that this association is practically significant. However, impact (r = -.04, p = .73) and fostering participation (r = .03, p = .76) are both not associated with job stress. So the measurement of self-determination supports hypothesis 1b, and the measurement of impact and fostering participation did not support hypothesis 1b.

Table 1 also presents the relationship between the control variables and the dependent variables: job satisfaction and job stress. Gender (r = .05, p = .63), educational level (r = .08, p = .46), and job tenure (r = .20, p = .07) are all not associated with job satisfaction. Although the last one has such a low p-value that I can assume that this variable is practically significant. Gender (r

= .07, p = .54), educational level (r = .01, p = .90) and job tenure (r = -.04, p = .71) are all not associated with job stress.

Because the potential control variables are all not significant, I did not controlled for them in the subsequent analysis, although I could assume that job tenure is associated with job satisfaction.

Regression Analysis

I used the regression analysis of Andrew F. Hayes (2017) – model 1 – during this research

to perform a regression analysis of empowerment and need for closure on job satisfaction and job

stress.

The results of the regression analysis of self-determination, impact, fostering participation, and need for closure on job satisfaction are shown in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4.

Table 2

Regression Results for Two-way Interaction: Self-determination and Job Satisfaction

Variables B t p

Self-determination 0.38 0.75 .45

Need for closure -0.08 -0.12 .91

Self-determination x Need for closure

0.00 0.11 .99

N = 83. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients.

p < .05,

p < .01.

Table 3

Regression Results for Two-way Interaction: Impact and Job Satisfaction

Variables B t p

Impact 0.75 1.41 .16

Need for closure 0.47 0.99 .32

Impact x Need for closure

-0.16 -1.38 .17

N = 83. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients.

p < .05,

p < .01.

Table 4

Regression Results for Two-way Interaction: Fostering Participation and Job Satisfaction

Variables B t p

Fostering participation -0.15 -0.49 .63

Need for closure 0.06 0.77 .45

Fostering participation x Need for closure

-0.42 -1.21 .23

N = 83. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients.

p < .05,

p < .01.

Hypothesis 2a predicted that empowerment and need for closure interact to influence job satisfaction, such that empowerment is associated with increased job satisfaction when need for closure is low, while empowerment is associated with decreased job satisfaction when need for closure is high.

Table 2 shows that the results of measuring self-determination do not support hypothesis 2a. I did not find an interaction effect (B = 0.00, t = 0.11, p = .99) of need for closure on job satisfaction when I measured self-determination. I neither found an association between self- determination (B = 0.38, t = 0.75, p = .45) and job satisfaction, and need for closure (B = -0.08, t = -0.12, p = .91) and job satisfaction.

Table 3 presents that the results of measuring impact do not support hypothesis 2a. I did not find an interaction effect (B = -0.16, t = -1.38, p = .17) of need for closure on job satisfaction when I measured impact. I neither found an association between impact (B = 0.75, t = 1.41, p = .16) and job satisfaction, and need for closure (B = 0.47, t = 0.99, p = .32) and job satisfaction.

Table 4 shows that the results of measuring fostering participation also do not support

hypothesis 2a. I did not find an interaction effect (B = -0.42, t = -1.21, p = .23) of need for closure

on job satisfaction when I measured fostering participation. I neither found an association between

fostering participation (B = -0.15, t = -0.49, p = .63) and job satisfaction, and need for closure (B = 0.06, t = 0.77, p = .45) and job satisfaction. In sum, regardless of how I measured empowerment – self-determination, impact, fostering participation – I did not find any support for hypothesis 2a.

The results of the regression analysis of self-determination, impact, fostering participation, and need for closure on job stress are shown in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7.

Table 5

Regression Results for Two-way Interaction: Self-determination and Job Stress

Variables B t p

Self-determination -0.01 -0.02 .98

Need for closure 0.23 0.34 .73

Self-determination x Need for closure

-0.04 -0.31 .76

N = 83. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients.

p < .05,

p < .01.

Table 6

Regression Results for Two-way Interaction: Impact and Job Stress

Variables B t p

Impact -0.19 -0.38 .71

Need for closure -0.07 -0.16 .88

Impact x Need for closure

0.03 0.30 .77

N = 83. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients.

p < .05,

p < .01.

Table 7

Regression Results for Two-way Interaction: Fostering Participation and Job Stress

Variables B t p

Fostering participation -0.02 -0.06 .95

Need for closure 0.03 0.08 .94

Fostering participation x Need for closure

0.01 0.12 .91

N = 83. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients.

p < .05,

p < .01.

Hypothesis 2b predicted that empowerment and need for closure interact to influence job stress, such that empowerment is associated with decreased job stress when need for closure is low, while empowerment is associated with increased job stress when need for closure is high.

Table 5 shows that the results of measuring self-determination do not support hypothesis 2b. I did not find an interaction effect (B = -0.04, t = -0.31, p = .76) of need for closure on job stress when I measured self-determination. I neither found an association between self-determination (B

= -0.01, t = -0.02, p = .98) and job stress, and need for closure (B = 0.23, t = 0.34, p = .73) and job stress.

Table 6 presents that the results of measuring impact do not support hypothesis 2b. I did not find an interaction effect (B = 0.03, t = 0.30, p = .77) of need for closure on job stress when I measured impact. I neither found an association between impact (B = -0.19, t = -0.38, p = .71) and job stress, and need for closure (B = -0.07, t = -0.16, p = .88) and job stress.

Table 7 shows that the results of measuring fostering participation also do not support

hypothesis 2b. I did not find an interaction effect (B = 0.01, t = 0.12, p = .91) of need for closure

on job stress when I measured fostering participation. I neither found an association between

fostering participation (B = -0.02, t = -0.06, p = .95) and job stress, and need for closure (B = 0.03,

t = 0.08, p = .94) and job stress. In sum, regardless of how I measured empowerment – self- determination, impact, fostering participation – I did not find any support for hypothesis 2b.

Discussion

The first purpose of this study was to replicate previous research by showing that empowerment is associated with increased job satisfaction and decreased job stress. The second purpose was to extend previous research by showing that need for closure has a moderating effect on the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction, and job stress.

One of my main findings is that I found support for hypothesis 1a: empowerment is positively related to job satisfaction. However, not all the variables I used to measure empowerment gave support for the hypothesis; only the measurement of self-determination did. The measurements of impact and fostering participation also did not gave support for the replicated part of the study. In addition, I found support for hypothesis 1b: empowerment is negatively related to job stress. Also here, not all the different ways of measurement gave support for this hypothesis. I assume that self-determination gave support. However, impact and fostering participation did not gave any support.

Unfortunately, I also did not find support for hypothesis 2a: empowerment and need for closure interact to influence job satisfaction, such that empowerment is associated with increased job satisfaction when need for closure is low, while empowerment is associated with decreased job satisfaction when need for closure is high. Regardless of how I measured empowerment – self- determination, impact, fostering participation – I did not find any support for this hypothesis.

Further, I did not find support for hypothesis 2b: empowerment and need for closure interact to

influence job stress, such that empowerment is associated with decreased job stress when need for

closure is low, while empowerment is associated with increased job stress when need for closure

is high. Also here, regardless of how I measured empowerment I did not find any support for this hypothesis.

Although I did not find support for all my hypotheses, my findings make several important research contributions. First, I replicated with success the previously tested hypotheses. So I showed that also in this organizational sector these hypotheses are supported. Especially self- determination was important for job satisfaction and job stress. If we look at previous studies, this is not surprising. For example, the study of Spreitzer et al. (1997) found no support for the relationship between impact and job satisfaction, but they did find support for the relationship between self-determination and job satisfaction. According to Spreitzer et al. (1997), this is partly due to the fact that self-determination is considered to be the most important dimension of empowerment in much literature (Burke, 1986; Byham, 1988; Macher, 1988; Neilsen, 1986). In addition, nowadays there is more focus on teams and cooperation in organization (Spreitzer et al., 1997). This may lessen employees’ experienced degree of autonomy and thus, may lessen their potential influence on organizational outcomes (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Since self-determination refers to employees’ experienced sense of control over their own work and implies job involvement, and impact refers to employees’ experienced sense of control over organizational outcomes and implies organizational involvement (Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997), there is a great possibility that nowadays self-determination is more important for employees – within empowerment – than impact is, or fostering participation.

Second, this study made a start with research on employee characteristics as an influence

on the outcomes of empowerment. My findings show that I did not find support for my hypotheses

regarding the moderating effect of need for closure. Although I did not find any support for these

hypotheses, it is still possible that need for closure has a moderating effect. However, more

extensive research is necessary to study this effect. In addition, it is also possible that other

employee characteristics have influence on empowerment outcomes. By investigating also other employee characteristics we can make the knowledge of empowerment more complete.

The results of this research also have important practical implications. First, this research shows that also in this organizational sector empowerment is associated with higher job satisfaction and lower job stress. So for organizations within this sector – which are struggling with low job satisfaction and high job stress – it may be helpful to apply – more – empowerment if this is possible. Then, they should pay particular attention to the self-determination dimension since this dimension has the strongest loading within empowerment.

Second, according to the findings of this research, organisations do not have to take into account the need for closure characteristic of employees, when they consider job satisfaction and job stress as most important indicators. Because I did not find any support for a moderating effect of need for closure on these outcomes. However, it is possible that need for closure does have a moderating effect on other empowerment outcomes, or that other employee characteristics have a moderating effect on job satisfaction and job stress.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the theoretical and practical contributions of this research, there are also limitations.

To overcome these limitations, I also give suggestions for future research.

First of all, this study was conducted in only one organizational sector since it was conducted in only one organization. Also the amount of employees that participated was relatively small. The size of this research was dependent on the time I had to conduct the research. I did not find any support for my hypotheses regarding need for closure, however this may due to the small group of participants. In only six months it was not feasible for me to study multiple organizations.

If I had more time, there was the possibility to ask more employees to participate in this research

and process all the extra data that I would collect then. In the future, more research with larger

groups of participants should be done in this organizational sector. Because a larger sample size will give a more generalized outcome of these – potential - relationships. In addition, “sample size is one of the four features of a study design that can influence the detection of significant differences, relationships or interactions” (Bartlet II, Kotrlik & Higgins, 2001; Peers, 1996). So it is important to do research with a larger and better sample size.

Second, I only measured need for closure as a moderator in this research. Due to a lack of time, I could study only one characteristic. The reason I chose for need for closure was that in my opinion this characteristic would have a great influence on the consequences of empowerment. Because empowerment often comes with more freedom and authority (Gandz &

Bird, 1996) and especially employees with high need for closure do not want freedom and authority, because these often come with uncertainty or ambiguity (Kosic et al., 2004; Kruglanski

& Webster, 1996; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). However, there are many more employee characteristics that are important to investigate as a moderator. For example, need for autonomy and confidence could be interesting moderators. The need for autonomy is described as “the quality or state of being independent, free and self-directing” (Harrell & Alpert, 1979). This could be interesting because applying empowerment comes with giving employees more freedom (Gandz

& Bird, 1996). Confidence is described as “the key driver in attaining and maintaining positions of

power and status, with implications for goal achievement and career success” (Martin & Phillips,

2017). This could be an interesting moderator because empowerment comes with more power and

influence for the employees (Gandz & Bird, 1996). For future research it is important that we study

other employee characteristics. In this way we can make the knowledge of empowerment more

complete and then we know which employee characteristics we should take into account when

applying empowerment in practice.

Third, I measured just two outcomes of empowerment. Although job satisfaction and job stress are considered as two of the three most important criteria to evaluate individuals in a work setting (Edwards, 1992), there are many more outcomes to study. For example, creativity and organizational citizenship can be studied (Spreitzer et al., 1997) together with employee characteristics as moderators. More research into these empowerment outcomes will make our knowledge of empowerment and its consequences more complete.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this research adds to the understanding of the influences employee characteristics may have on positive and negative consequences of empowerment. In this research, I did not find support for the hypotheses which state that need for closure has a moderating effect on empowerment consequences. However, replicating and more extensive research is necessary to find out whether my findings could be confirmed or not. In addition, also the influences of other employee characteristics should be studied. I hope that this study will promote future research that takes into account the underexplored moderating effects of employee characteristics on the consequences of empowerment.

References

Acar-Burkay, S., Fennis, B. M., & Warlop, L. 2014. Trusting others: The polarization effect of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4): 719-735.

Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J., Fiedler, K., & Nosek, B. A. 2013. Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27(2): 108 – 119.

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & McDaniel, M. A. 1990. Age and work performance in

nonmanagerial jobs: The effects of experience and occupational type. Academy of

Management Journal, 33(2): 407-422.

Bartlet II, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. 2001. Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1): 43-50.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. 1985. Leaders. New York: Harper & Row.

Bowen, D., & Lawler, E. 1992. The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how and when.

Sloan Management Review, 33(4): 31-39.

Burke, W. 1986. Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastra (Ed.), Executive power. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Byham, W. C. 1988. Zapp! The lightning of empowerment. New York: Harmony Books.

Collins, D. 1995. Death of a gainsharing plan: Power politics and participatory management.

Organization Dynamics, 24(1): 23-27.

Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. 1984. Stress and strain from family roles and work role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2): 252-260.

Diestel, S., Wegge, J., & Schmidt, K. H. 2014. The impact of social context on the relationship between individual job satisfaction and absenteeism: The roles of different foci of job satisfaction and work-unit absenteeism. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2): 353- 382.

Dyne Van, L., Jehn, K. A., & Cummings, A. 2002. Differential effects of strain on two forms of work performance: Individual employee sales and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1): 57-74.

Eden, D. 2002. From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5): 841 – 846.

Edwards, J. R. 1992. A cybernetic theory of strain, coping and well-being in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 17(2): 238-274.

Feenstra, S., Jordan, J., Walter, F., Yan, J., & Stoker, J. I. 2017. The hazard of teetering at the top and being tied to the bottom: The interactive relationship of power, stability, and social dominance orientation with work stress. Applied Psychology, 66(4): 653 – 673.

Ford, R., & Fottler, M. 1995. Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of Management Executive, 9(3): 21-28.

Forrester, J. 2000. Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3): 67-80.

Gandz, J., & Bird, F. G. 1996. The ethics of empowerment. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(4):

383-392.

Gillespie, D. F., & Numerof, R. E. 1984a. The development of a unidimensional measure of burnout: The GNBI (Working paper). St. Louis, Missouri: Washington University.

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

Harrell, T., & Alpert, B. 1979. The need for autonomy among managers. Academy of Management Review, 4(2): 259-267.

Hatcher, S., & Laschinger, H. K. S. 1996. Staff nurses’ perceptions of job empowerment and level of burnout: A test of Kanter’s theory of structural power in organizations. Canadian Journal of Nusring Administration, 9(2): 74-94.

Haugh, H.M., & Talwar, A. 2016. Linking social entrepreneurship and social change: The mediating role of empowerment. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4): 643-658.

Hausknecht, J. P., Hiller, N. J., & Vance, R. J. 2008. Work-unit absenteeism: Effects of satisfaction commitment, labor market conditions, and time. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6):

1223-1245.

Hayes, A.F. 2017. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Hill, N. S., Kang, J. H., & Seo, M. G. 2014. The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and electronic communication on employee psychological empowerment and work outcomes.

The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4): 772-783.

Humborstad, S. I. W., & Kuvaas, B. 2013. Mutuality in leader-subordinate empowerment expectation: Its impact on role ambiguity and intrinsic motivation. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2): 363-377.

Hunter, L. W., & Thatcher, S. M. B. 2007. Feeling the heat: Effects of stress, commitment, and job experience on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 953-968.

Jasny, B. R., Chin, G., Chong, L., & Vignieri, S. 2011. Again, and again, and again …. Science, 334(6060): 1225 – 1225.

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

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

Kanter, R. M. 1983. The changemasters. New York: Basic Books.

Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. 1995. Leadership and empowerment: A social exchange perspective.

Human Relations, 48(2): 127-146.

Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. 2004. The social cognition of immigrants’

acculturation: Effects of the need for closure and the reference group at entry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6): 796-813.

Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. 1999. Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 59(1): 127-142.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. 1996. Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and

“freezing”. Psychological Review, 103: 263-283.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J. E., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. 2001b. Impact of structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: Expanding Kanter’s Model. Journal of Nursing Administration, 31: 260-272.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J. E., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. 2004. A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4): 527-545.

Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. 2005. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 764-775.

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2000. An examination of the mediating role of psychological emprovement on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 407-416.

Macher, K. 1988. Empowerment and the bureaucracy. Training and Development Journal, 42(9):

41-45.

Martin, A. E., & Phillips, K. W. 2017. What “blindness” to gender differences helps women see and do: Implications for confidence, agency, and action in male-dominated environments.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142: 28-44.

Mayseless, O., & Kruglanski, A. W. 1987. What makes you so sure? Effects of epistemic motivations on judgmental confidence. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 39(2): 162-183.

McClelland, D. C. 1975. Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington Press.

Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. 2003. Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment:

Organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of Management Review, 28(1):

143-153.

Mitchell, T. R. 1985. An evaluation of the validity of correlational research in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 10(2): 192-205.

Natarajan, C. N. K., & Nagar, D. 2011. Effects of service tenure and nature of occupation on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Management Research, 11(1):

59-64.

Neilsen, E. H. 1986. Empowerment strategies: Balancing authority and responsibility. In A.

Srivastva & Associates (Ed.), Executive Power. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nielson, E. 1986. Empowerment strategies: Balancing authority and responsibility. In S. Srivastra (Ed.), Executive power. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Peers, I. 1996. Statistical analysis for education and psychology researchers. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Podsakoff, N. P., Lepine, J. A., & Lepine, M. A. 2007. Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2): 438-454.

Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. 2011. An integrative process approach on judgment and decision making: The impact of arousal, affect, motivation, and cognitive ability. Psychological Record, 61(3): 497-520.

Schleicher, D. J., Watt, J. D., & Greguras, G. J. 2004. Reexamining the job satisfaction- performance relationship: The complexity of attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1): 165-177.

Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. 2004. Taking empowerment to the next level: A

multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of

Management Journal, 47(3): 332-349.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. 2011. Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5): 981-1003.

Sharma, P. N., & Kirkman, B. L. 2015. Leveraging leaders: A literature review and future lines of inquiry for empowering leadership research. Group & Organization Management, 40(2):

193-237.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin. C. L. 1969. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1442-1465.

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.

Tannenbaum, A. S. 1968. Control in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thomas, K., & Tymon, W. 1994. Does empowerment always work: Understanding the role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation. Journal of Management Systems, 6(3):

311-326.

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.

Waterman, R. 1987. The renewal factor. New York: Bantam Books.

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. 1994. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6): 1049-1062.

Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. 1995. Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of

Management Journal, 38(5): 1288-1309.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. 2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The

influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process

engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1): 107-128.