Received: 25 May 2020 Revised: 29 July 2020 Accepted: 19 August 2020

DOI: 10.1002/pa.2418

ACADEMIC PAPER

Linking structural empowerment and distributive justice to

employee's behavioral and attitudinal consequences: Testing
the mediating role of psychological empowerment

Arun Aggarwal1 | Kamrunnisha Nobi2 | Sanjay Rastogi3

1
Chitkara Business School, Chitkara University,
Punjab, India Psychological empowerment plays a vital role in affecting the individual and
2
Department of Commerce, Panjab University, organizational consequences. However, there is scant research on the antecedents
Chandigarh, India
3
and consequences of psychological empowerment despite being an essential variable
Department of Quantitative Techniques,
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, in organizational studies. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the impact of
India
structural empowerment and distributive justice on employee's commitment and citi-
Correspondence zenship behavior through psychological empowerment. A cross-section research
Sanjay Rastogi, Department of Quantitative
designed was used to collect the data from 389 nurses employed in public and pri-
Techniques, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade,
New Delhi, India. vate hospitals operating in Punjab, India. Out of these, 224 respondents were work-
Email: srastogi@[Link]; sanjayrastogi12@
ing in public hospitals, while 165 were of private hospitals. To test the proposed
[Link]
hypothesized relationships, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was applied. The
findings of the study depicted that structural empowerment significantly impacts the
affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior through psychological
empowerment. Findings of the multi-group moderation analysis depicted that the
majority of the hypothesized relationships showed no significant results. The results
of the study proposed that rather than changing the individual characteristics, a
leader should improve the structure of the organization and should provide access to
structural empowerment, which ultimately leads to positive behavioral and attitudinal
organizational consequences. This study examines the effect of structural empower-
ment and distributive justice on OCB and affective commitment, which is being medi-
ated through the psychological empowerment of nursing professionals in healthcare
settings of India.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N of empowerment to positively affect the organizational and individual

outcomes (Ayala Calvo & García, 2018; Singh & Sarkar, 2019). The
During the past three decades, the notion of empowerment in the management practitioners proposed that empowerment leads to
workplace has been embraced by various organizational researchers high employee involvement within the organization, which further
(Singh and Singh, 2019; Mostafa, 2017) and business practitioners affects the organizational productivity and higher level of job
(Byham, 1988; Ford & Fottler, 1995; Kizilos, 1990). However, at the satisfaction (Choi, Goh, Adam, & Tan, 2016; Hechanova, Alampay, &
same time, some researchers dismissed the concept of empowerment Franco, 2006; Wong & Laschinger, 2013). Apart from this, the initial
by coining it as “passing fad” or “buzz word” (Abrahamson, 1996; theoretical developers of the psychological empowerment theory
Strawn, 1994). Despite this, there is a substantial increment in the (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), and construct
interest of researchers and academicians for empowerment (Afsar & validation of multi-dimensionality of psychological empowerment
Badir, 2016; Gholifar & Gholami, 2014; Jha, 2018; Safari et al., 2020; scale (Spreitzer, 1995a) as well as empirical evidence suggested the
Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011). The reason for this is the ability positive relationship between empowerment and organizational

J Public Affairs. 2020;e2418. [Link]/journal/pa © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1 of 17
[Link]
2 of 17 AGGARWAL ET AL.

outcomes (Gregory, Albritton, & Osmonbekov, 2010; Joo & Jo, 2017; Spreitzer (1995a) replaced the dimension of choice with self-
Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001b, 2001c; Ugwu, Onyishi, & determination and renamed the meaningfulness dimension with
Rodríguez-Sánchez, 2014). All this pinpoints the significance of meaning. In the present study, the researchers have used the labeled
empowerment in organizational settings. specified by Spreitzer (1995a).
Over the period, different researchers have distinguished empow- Meaning concerns that match between the necessities of an indi-
erment into two major categories (Amor, Vázquez, & Faíña, 2020; vidual's work role and individual's behaviors, standards, values, and
Mufti, Xiaobao, Shah, Sarwar, & Zhenqing, 2020), psychological beliefs (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Spreitzer, 1996, 1995a). The
empowerment (motivational approach), and socio-structural empow- meaning dimension is similar to “job characteristic model” proposed
erment (relational approach). The roots of socio-structural empower- by Hackman and Oldham (1980), which recommends that when an
ment are found in the Kanter's (1977) theory. The most vital feature activity “counts” in one's value system then he/she feels a sense of
of this perspective is power-sharing (Conger & Kanungo, 1988) among meaning. This results in a feeling of “caring about a given task”
subordinate and supervisor and decentralization of power (Bennis & (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 672).
Nanus, 1985; Kanter, 1983, 1977) to cascade pertinent decision mak- The Impact is the degree of influence that individuals have on
ing power to subordinates (Carless, 2004; Liden and Arad, 1996). This operational activities, administrative, or strategic outcomes at the
perspective implant the ideas and values of democracy, that is, all indi- workplace (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Ashforth, 1989;
viduals have equal power within the system (Prasad, 2001; Prasad & Carless, 2004). That is, it manifests the notion of an individual's feeling
Eylon, 2001). According to Spreitzer (2008), lower-level employees that his/her behavior makes a difference at the workplace or their
within the organization can be empowered by providing access to sense of control over organizational outcomes (Liden et al., 2000;
resources, support, information, and opportunity. On the other hand, Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
the constellation of experienced cognitions or psychological states is Self-determination is concerned with the individual's sense of
associated with a motivational approach of empowerment choice pertaining to initiating and regulating an individual's actions
(Spreitzer, 1995a; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This approach focuses (Carless, 2004; Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). Self-determination is
on the perceptions of the employees regarding their sense of control similar to “locus of causality” given by Deci and Ryan (1985). It
at the workplace (Spreitzer, 2008), their power to deal with people, manifested independence in decision-making procedures regarding
situations, and events that they confront at the workplace (Stewart & when and how work is undertaken (Carless, 2004).
Manz, 1997). As compare to the socio-structural approach of empow- The roots of Competence originates from the work of self-efficacy
erment, psychological empowerment gives less importance to the del- proposed by Bandura (1977, 1986, 1989). It reflects the individual's
egation of responsibility and power, rather it emphasized feedback, capabilities of performing an activity or task competently at the work-
encouragement, inspirational goal determination, and open communi- place (Bandura, 1982; Carless, 2004; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). To date,
cation to enhance the involvement and commitment among it is observed that a bulk of research on empowerment has been
employees (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis- mainly concerned with the individual job incumbent's psychological
LaMastro, 1990; Seibert et al., 2011; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). The experience of empowerment and associating this with varied
motivational or psychological perspective of empowerment was first work-related outcomes like work performance, job satisfaction
introduced with the conceptual work conducted by motivational theo- (Carless, 2004). Nevertheless, a model is considered incomplete if it is
rist Conger and Kanungo (1988). They contended that by empowering only capturing the individual's subjective reactions but does not study
organizational practices, the extent of employee motivation and initia- the contextual factors simultaneously, which is responsible for shap-
tion depends on the amount of informational cues rendered by these ing those perceptions (Seibert, Silver, & Sashkin, 2001). Different
practices, which further amplifies the self-efficacy feeling researchers at different points of time have pointed out the impor-
(Bandura, 1986) or expectancies of effort-performance of the tance of contextual factors or the organizational environment in
employees (Lawler, 1973). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) extended studying empowerment (Lamm, Tosti-Kharas, & King, 2015;
the motivational approach of Conger and Kanungo (1988), proving a Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk, 2009; Laschinger, Nosko, Wilk, &
more comprehensive theoretical framework of psychological empow- Finegan, 2014; Spreitzer, 1997, 1996). Still, there are very few studies
erment (Seibert et al., 2011). Based on different theories of cognitive which have captured the linkage between psychological empower-
motivation, they identified four types of psychological cognitions ment and structural empowerment (Ahadi & Suandi, 2014; Meng
associated with intrinsic task motivation. Those were impact, choice, et al., 2015; Singh & Sarkar, 2019; Wagner et al., 2010). It has been
competence, and meaningfulness (Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000; observed that positive changes in workplace structure can lead to
Seibert et al., 2011; Spreitzer, 2008). Grounding on the conceptualiza- high employee commitment, work engagement, reduce stress and
tion of Thomas and Velthouse (1990), the first multidimensional scale healthier employees which ultimately results in improved patient care
to measure the perceptions of psychological empowerment was and better organizational outcomes (Aggarwal, Chand, Jhamb, &
developed by Spreitzer (1995a). Spreitzer (1995a) operationalized and Mittal, 2020; Aggarwal, Dhaliwal, & Nobi, 2018; Laschinger, 2008).
extended this model and defined the psychological empowerment as Therefore, it is essential to understand the contextual factors that
“increased intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cogni- facilitate empowerment in the work setting, especially in this era of
tions reflecting an individual's orientation to his or her work role.”. the pandemic of Covid-19. From a practical point of view, it can
AGGARWAL ET AL. 3 of 17

render suggestions to practitioners for making the workplace in such control over nursing practice (Huffman, 1995; Laschinger et al., 1999;
a way where employees can feel empowered. From a theoretical point Laschinger & Havens, 1996) and job autonomy (Laschinger
of view, this will elaborate our knowledge regarding antecedents of et al., 1999; Sabiston & Laschinger, 1995) which ultimately leads to
empowerment, especially psychological empowerment, and attitudinal innovative behavior at work (Helmy, Adawiyah, & Banani, 2019;
and behavioral consequences of empowerment. Apart from this, this Knol & Van Linge, 2009; Singh & Sarkar, 2019). Based on
research is one of its types, especially in Indian scenarios. As to the Kanter's (1977, 1983) pioneer work on structural empowerment, for-
best of our knowledge, no other study has examined the effect of mer researchers considered organizational practices and structures as
structural empowerment and perceptions of distributive justice on criteria of empowerment. However, the present research scholars,
organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment rather than viewing it as empowerment itself, conceive these indica-
through psychological empowerment in the context of the nursing tors as part of the contextual antecedents of psychological empower-
profession operating in India. ment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004;
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The second Spreitzer, 1996; Spreitzer, 2008).
section is devoted to the theoretical background of the study and It has been observed in the past that the majority of the prior
hypothesis development. In the third section, a detailed description is researches have ignored the association among structural and psycho-
given about the research methodology and design of the study. The logical approach of empowerment and simply focused on the individ-
fourth section deals with the data analysis and statistical procedure ual factors.
used to analyze the data. In the next section, the results and findings However, the empirical work by Laschinger, Finegan, and
of the study are discussed, followed by the implications of the study. Shamian (2001b); Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, and Almost (2001)
The last section deals with the limitations and future scope of the revealed an elaborated model for workplace empowerment in which a
study. multi-dimensional model of structural empowerment affects psycho-
logical empowerment. Further, this linkage was validated by different
researchers, which showed a strong correlation between structural
2 | HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT AND empowerment and psychological empowerment (Aggarwal,
T H E O R E T I C A L BA C K G R O U N D Dhaliwal, & Nobi, 2018; Meng et al., 2015). The findings of the
Laschinger, Finegan, and Wilk (2009) work suggested psychological
2.1 | Relationship between structural empowerment as a crucial element for empowerment at the work-
empowerment and psychological empowerment place as it constitutes employee rewards or internal work motivation,
which are underlying features of empowerment at the workplace.
Kanter's “Theory of Structural Power in Organizations” (Kanter, 1977, Laschinger, Finegan, and Wilk (2009) depicted that structural empow-
1993), is an essential theoretical framework of structural empower- erment has a significant effect on employees working in health care
ment. Kanter's (1977) original six dimensions of structural empower- sectors when an employee successfully experience interventions of
ment has been studied extensively as distinctive and distinguishes the psychological empowerment (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, &
source of organizational power which leads to empowerment of Wilk, 2001). The results of these studies pinpoint the importance of
employees (Laschinger, Almost, & Tuer, 2003; Laschinger & maintaining and developing efficient and firm health care practices. To
Finegan, 2005b; Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001b; Laschinger, confirm this notion, Laschinger (2008) revealed that employees were
Finegan, Shamian, & Almost, 2001; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & highly committed and showed lower levels of stress when employees
Wilk, 2003, 2001; Miller, Goddard, & Laschinger, 2000). Different were healthier. This condition will ultimately lead to better organiza-
studies have also associated structural empowerment and psychologi- tional consequences, such as better patient care. Various other studies
cal empowerment with various behavioral and attitudinal conse- have also found a direct and strong relationship between structural
quences, such as job satisfaction (Casey, Saunders, & O'hara, 2010; empowerment and psychological empowerment (Knol & Van
Kõiv, Liik, & Heidmets, 2019; Schermuly, Schermuly, & Meyer, 2011), Linge, 2009; Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk, 2009; Laschinger, Purdy, &
career satisfaction (Kong, Sun, & Yan, 2016), organizational commit- Almost, 2007).
ment (Jha, 2011; Limpanitgul, Boonchoo, Kulviseachana, & Hence, the following hypotheses were derived based on the
Photiyarach, 2017; Raub & Robert, 2013), employee turnover inten- above discussion.
sions (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011; Shah, Khattak, Zolin, &
Shah, 2019), organizational citizenship behavior (Singh, Chand, Hypothesis H1 Opportunity positively impacts the perceptions of
Mittal, & Aggarwal, 2020; Singh and Singh 2019; Joo & Jo, 2017), psychological empowerment.
lower levels of job strain, emotional exhaustion and job burnout
(Ayala Calvo & García, 2018; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Hypothesis H2 Information positively impacts the perceptions of
Wilk, 2001; Zhang, Ye, & Li, 2018). Empirical findings of the prior psychological empowerment.
research depicted that employee's feel more empowered when
employees participated in the decision-making process (Kutzscher, Hypothesis H3 Support positively impacts the perceptions of psy-
1994; Laschinger, Wong, McMahon, & Kaufmann, 1999), perceived chological empowerment.
4 of 17 AGGARWAL ET AL.

Hypothesis H4 Resource positively impacts the perceptions of psy- workplace atmosphere that is supportive and understands the needs
chological empowerment. of the employees, then it leads to a feeling of high psychological
empowerment (Conger, 1989; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1999). Conse-
Hypothesis H5 Formal power positively impacts the perceptions of quently, such empowered employees reciprocate by showing a high
psychological empowerment. level of commitment towards the organization (Huang, Liu, &
Huang, 2020; Joo & Shim, 2010; Lee & Nie, 2014). Thus, it is likely
Hypothesis H6 Informal power positively impacts the perceptions of that the more employees are empowered, the more highly they are
psychological empowerment. committed to their organization. Avolio, Zhu, Koh, and Bhatia (2004)
examined the relationship between psychological empowerment and
organizational commitment and found that by creating a greater sense
2.2 | Relationship between distributive justice and of empowerment, there is an increase in the levels of organizational
psychological empowerment commitment. Although it is cogent to expect that psychological
empowerment fosters organizational commitment, the literature sug-
Despite the numerous research in the field of empowerment, there gests that working conditions, demographic highlights, organizational
are very few studies that examine the relationship between percep- behavior, etc. have an influencing effect on it (Laschinger, Wilk,
tions of organizational justice and psychological empowerment of Cho, & Greco, 2009). Meyer and Allen (1991) expressed that psycho-
employees. Spreitzer (1996) identified the positive impact of partici- logical empowerment is closely associated with organizational com-
pative work climate, access to information, lesser role ambiguity, and mitment because the loss of empowerment results in the sacrifice of
high socio-political support on managerial perceptions of empower- something valuable, which is very difficult to replace.
ment. Further, Najafi, Noruzy, Azar, Nazari-Shirkouhi, and Dal-
vand (2011) found a direct relationship between organizational justice Hypothesis H8 : Psychological empowerment positively impacts the
and psychological empowerment. Organizational justice, in return, affective commitment.
affects the perceptions of nurses regarding respect (Laschinger,
2004). Nevertheless, Herrenkohl, Judson, and Heffner (1999) found
the perceived fairness of the employees to be the most critical deter- 2.4 | Relationship between psychological
minant in differentiating among the less empowered groups and more empowerment and organizational citizenship behavior
empowered groups. It can be concluded that these variables consti-
tute part of social influences that indicate top management's practices Empowerment helps to develop a proactive behavior that leads to
and policies which affect the work attitudes of the employees. There- more effectiveness and innovation at work (Spreitzer, 1995b). More
fore, keeping this in mind, we hypothesized that perceptions of dis- precisely, empowerment increases concentration, initiative, and resil-
tributive justice would have a positive impact on the psychological iency (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) and found to be closely associated
empowerment of the employees (Kamalian, Yaghoubi, & Moloudi, with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Wat & Shaffer, 2005).
2010; Zhang & Agarwal, 2009). Subordinates found those supervisors as more influencing, innovative,
and inspirational, who reported higher levels of empowerment
Hypothesis H7 The perceptions of distributive justice positively (Spreitzer, De Janasz, & Quinn, 1999). It may be due to the reason
impacts the psychological empowerment. that empowerment boosts the sentiments of self-efficacy amongst
subordinates and other organizational members, which they recipro-
cate by performing OCBs (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Various studies
2.3 | Relationship between psychological have found the close association of empowerment with added work
empowerment and affective commitment outcomes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and
performance (Mostafa, 2017; Guerrero, Chênevert, Vandenberghe,
Empowerment is considered to be an effective managerial technique Tremblay, & Ayed, 2018; Singh and Singh, 2019). Empowerment is a
in making employees more committed (McDermott, Laschinger, & powerful mechanism for increasing employee involvement in OCBs
Shamian, 1996). Seibert et al. (2011) also confirms this by showing and exercise initiative that results in higher job satisfaction and aug-
organizational commitment as an essential behavioral consequence of mented organizational output (Salimi & Abdi, 2018; Shah et al., 2019).
psychological empowerment. According to psychological empower- Psychological empowerment is likely to encourage OCBs because
ment theory, empowered employees are likely to take an active orien- employees will feel capable of achieving positive outcomes in their
tation towards their work and perform “above and beyond” the call of work only, and only if they will show a sense of identification and
duty (Spreitzer, 2008). When an employee feels autonomy in per- involvement (Bandura, 1997). Apart from this, OCB have further vari-
forming a job, a sense of responsibility and power in decision making ous positive and negative consequences, knowing to these can help
and perform challenging tasks that make a difference in the organiza- the managers to take particular measure in respect of darker and posi-
tion leads to an empowering state. Further, when am employer tive outcomes of OCB (Aggarwal & Singh, 2016). Thus, psychological
engages their employees in confidence-building practices, gives a empowerment is also likely to be associated with OCBs.
AGGARWAL ET AL. 5 of 17

Hypothesis H9 Psychological Empowerment positively impacts the Hypothesis H10 The psychological empowerment mediates the
organizational citizenship behavior. effect of structural empowerment and distributive justice on
affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.

2.5 | The mediating role of psychological

empowerment 2.6 | Control variables

Based on the hypotheses mentioned above, it can be concluded In the proposed structural model, we have included six control vari-
that different researchers have examined the consequences of ables (educational qualification, job experience, marital status, area of
structural empowerment. Previous research has shown that belonging, income, and age) that may probably affect the proposed
employees reciprocate the perceptions of high empowerment in hypothesized relationships. To avoid the problem of endogeneity in
terms more committed towards the organization (Eisenberger the structural model, we have included these six variables as control
et al., 1990; Kraimer, Seibert, & Liden, 1999). Avolio et al. (2004) variables as it depicts estimates insistency in the model (Antonakis,
found the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, 2010). Prior research on empowerment
relationship between organizational commitment and transforma- has shown the significance of educational qualification, job experi-
tional leadership style. Psychological empowerment gives less ence, marital status, area of belonging, income, and age on the percep-
importance to the delegation of responsibility and power, rather it tion of empowerment among employees. For example, Ning, Zhong,
emphasized feedback, encouragement, inspirational goal determi- Libo, and Qiujie (2009) found that nurses who loved their nursing pro-
nation, and open communication to enhance the involvement and fession and were also young perceived more empowerment at the
commitment among employees (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; workplace. On the contrary, Hancer and George (2003) found that
Eisenberger et al., 1990; Seibert et al., 2011; Thomas & younger employees feel less empowered as compared to older
Velthouse, 1990). That is, empowered employees will perform employees. In another study Cho, Laschinger, and Wong (2006) rev-
extra-role and be highly committed and will be able to influence ealed that 2/3rd of the young nurses experience high levels of burn-
their job and organizations in a more meaningful way out. Previous research also depicted that younger nurses experience
(Kanter, 1983; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Kanter, 1993; Wiley, 1999). severe emotional exhaustion as compare to older nurses (Widger
However, there are very few studies which have examined the pro- et al., 2007).
cesses and mechanism through which structural empowerment Furthermore, this state of employees can reduce their dedication
affect different organizational outcomes. Some researchers have and vigor at the workplace and also the notion of empowerment. Dif-
examined the mediating or moderating role of psychological ferent research findings have found an inverse relationship between
empowerment on the relationship between different antecedents turnover intentions of the employees and their age (Gray &
and consequences of psychological empowerment (Knol and Van Phillips, 1994; Kiyak, Namazi, & Kahana, 1997; Lowery &
Linge (2009). For example, O'Brien (2010) examined the effect of Jacobsen, 1984; Parasuraman, 1989). Apart from this, certain other
structural empowerment and burnout through psychological individual factors can have an impact on the perceptions of empower-
empowerment. Meng et al. (2015) also examined the impact of ment as they manifest the level of experience, skills, and knowledge
structural empowerment on burnout and intention to stay through that they carry at their work. Such as one's level of experience, age,
psychological empowerment. Ahadi and Suandi (2014) examined and education are vital determinants of an individual's productive
the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relation- capabilities (Becker, 2009). These individual factors are part of human
ship between structural empowerment and organizational commit- capital, and this human capital can have a positive effect at the work-
ment. Priyadharshany and Sujatha (2015) showed psychological place and individual's capability to carry out actions at the workplace,
empowerment mediates the relationship between structural which are the critical determinants of psychological empowerment
empowerment and job satisfaction. Similarly, different researchers (Seibert et al., 2011). Type of employment also has an impact on the
examined the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the perceptions of empowerment. For example, previous research evi-
relationship between structural empowerment and different organi- dence showed that employees who were temporarily employed expe-
zational outcomes (Ayala Calvo & García, 2018; Singh and Sarkar, rienced lower levels of empowerment as compared to employees who
2018; Xu & Yang, 2018; Ahadi, 2012). However, we were not able were employed permanently (Felfe, Schmook, Schyns, & Six, 2008;
to find any study that examined the effect of structural empower- Kim, 2007; Lim, 2007). In a similar type of study, results revealed that
ment on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship full-time employees feel more empowered as compared to part-time
behavior through psychological empowerment. Therefore, we pro- employees (Fulford & Enz, 1995; Hancer & George, 2003). Qiao, Khilji,
posed that psychological empowerment will mediate the relation- and Wang (2009) found a significant positive relationship between
ship between (“opportunity, information, support, resources, formal age and marital status on organizational commitment whereas, the
power, informal power, and distributive justice”) “structural level of education has a significant negative relationship with the com-
empowerment” (exogenous variable) and “affective commitment mitment of the employees. The results of the Laschinger, Finegan, and
and organizational citizenship behavior” (endogenous variables). Wilk (2009) revealed a positive relationship between psychological
6 of 17 AGGARWAL ET AL.

empowerment and year of nursing practice whereas, a negative rela- 389 respondents, 224 respondents were from public sector hospitals,
tionship was observed between structural empowerment and year of and 165 were from private sector hospitals. 228 (58.61%) were males,
nursing practice. Kluska, Laschinger, and Kerr (2004) manifested that and 161 (41.39%) were females. One hundred fifty-eight respondents
degree holder nurses significantly feel more empowered than diploma (40.62%) were unmarried, and 231 respondents (59.38%) were mar-
holder nurses. Research also demonstrated that level of experience, ried. One hundred forty-six respondents (37.5%) were less than
education, marital status, gender, and age influences the commitment 25 years of age, 139 were between the age group of 25–30 years.
level of the employees (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Qiao Seventy-seven respondents (19.8%) were between the age group of
et al., 2009). Therefore, to avoid the problem of endogeneity, we have 30–35 years, and only 6.9% (27 respondents) were more than
included educational qualification, job experience, marital status, area 35 years of age. It means that 73.3% of the respondents were less
of belonging, income, and age as control variables in the structural than 30 years of age. Around three-fourths of the participants,
model. 264 (67.86%) had a family income of more than INR 1000,000 per
annum (USD 13,654; 1 USD = 73.24 INR), which comes under high-
income class as per the classification given by World Bank calculated
3 | METHODS by using Atlas methods.2 This figure is also much higher than the aver-
age per capita income of India. The rest of the respondents belonged
3.1 | Participants and procedure to the upper-middle-class category. The rest of the respondents had a
family income of less than INR 1000,000 per annum.
In this cross-sectional study, a multistage random sampling technique
was used to collect the data from employees working public and pri-
vate sector hospitals operating in Punjab, Chandigarh Tricity, and 3.2 | Measures
Delhi NCR (India). At present, the market size of the healthcare sector
is USD 280 billion, and it is expected to reach USD 372 billion by Based on the review of the literature, different scales were selected
1
2022, with a CAGR of 16–17%. In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, to measure the constructs in the proposed model. Firstly, the Psycho-
the healthcare sector has become one of India's largest sector, both in logical Empowerment of the nurses was measured with the scale
terms of revenue and employment. Therefore, it is essential to study developed by Spreitzer (1995a). It consists of 12 statements with four
the attitude and behavior of the employees working in this sector. dimensions, namely competence (3-items), impact (3-items), self-
The data were collected offline by directly approaching the respon- determination (3-items), and meaning (3-items). Sample items consist
dents. The respondents were informed that their participation is vol- of “The work I do is very important to me, I am confident about my
untary, and no incentive will be given to them. To check the ability to do my job, I have significant autonomy in determining how I
respondent's attention, reverse-coded items were put in the question- do my job, My impact on what happens in my department is large.”
naire, such as “I think that I could easily become as attached to The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.86. Next, to measure the
another organization as I am to this one”; “Consumes a lot of perceptions of employees regarding “Structural Empowerment,” con-
time complaining about trivial matters”; “Consumes a lot of time ditions for work effectiveness Questionnaire-II provided by
complaining about trivial matters”; “Consumes a lot of time Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, and Wilk (2001) was used. It is of
complaining about trivial matters.” Before starting with the final data 18 items scale with 6 constructs namely “opportunity, information,
collection, the questionnaire was pre-tested among 38 respondents support, resources, formal power, and informal power.” Each factor
living in Chandigarh, and the results of the pre-test found acceptable has three items measured on a five-point likert scale. The sample
Cronbach's alpha coefficient value. To control “order bias” the lan- items consist of “Opportunity for Challenging work, Values top man-
guage and the sequence of the items measuring these two constructs agement, Things you could improve, Time available for paperwork,
were modified (Jain, Khan, & Mishra, 2017). Further, to control the Rewards for innovation, Peers seek advice.” The Cronbach's alpha for
method bias, the respondents were assured regarding the confidenti- opportunity was 0.95, information was 0.88, support was 0.84,
ality and anonymity of their data. The final questionnaire was distrib- resources was 0.93, formal power was 0.94, and informal power
uted to 536 out of which 412 questionnaires were returned. Further was 0.92.
out of this 412 questionnaire, 23 were not qualified for the final anal- Further, to measure the perceptions of the employees regarding
ysis as these 23 questionnaires were discarded due to the missing distributive justice, the researcher used the scale given by Col-
data or unengaged response pattern. Hence, we were left with quitt (2001). This scale consists of four items that measure the per-
389 usable questionnaires. Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and ceptions of the distributive justice of nurses. The sample items consist
Tatham (2006) are of the view that the sample size could be five times of “Does your outcome reflect the effort you have put into your
the number of variables in the instrument. In the current study, work?, Is your outcome appropriate for the work you have com-
65 items are in the instrument; therefore, a sample size of 325 would pleted?, Does your outcome reflect what you have contributed to the
be appropriate. The response rate that is (389/536) 72.57 means that organization?, Is your outcome justified, given your performance?.”
there is no real risk of sample bias, as Fowler (2013) suggests that the The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.96. Next, the Affective
higher the response rate, the lower the sample bias. Out of Commitment was measured with the scale developed by Allen and
AGGARWAL ET AL. 7 of 17

Meyer (1990). It contains eight statements measuring the Affective upper bound) does not contain zero (MacKinnon, Fairchild, &
Commitment of employees towards the organizations. The sample Fritz, 2007; Shrout & Bolger, 2002).
items consist of “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career To test the moderating effect, two groups were created (private
with this organization, I think that I could easily become as attached and public sector). These two sub-groups fulfill the minimum criteria
to another organization as I am to this one (R), This organization has a of 100 subjects in each sub-group to perform a moderation analysis
great deal of personal meaning for me, I do not feel a strong sense of (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). As proposed by Iglesias and Vázquez (2001), the
belonging to my organization (R).” The Cronbach's alpha for this scale correlation of estimations, which includes critical ratios, standard
was 0.84. error, and unstandardized estimates, were used for comparing the
Finally, the Organizational Citizenship Behaviour was measured two sub-groups. Furthermore, Z-test was used to examine the moder-
with the scale developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and ating effect of these two sub-groups on hypothesized relationships
Fetter (1990). This scale consists of 24 statements with five sub- (Hair et al., 2006).
dimensions namely conscientiousness (5-items), Sportsmanship
(5-items), Civic Virtue (4-items), Courtesy (5-items), and Altruism
(5-items). The sample items consist of “Obeys company rules and reg- 4.1 | Common method biasness
ulations even when no one is watching, Always finds fault with what
the organization is doing. (R), Attends functions that are not required, As the data was collected through self-reported method, hence there
but help the company image, Tries to avoid creating problems for co- might be an issue of common method bias in the study (Podsakoff,
workers, Willingly helps others who have work related problems.” MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). To test the common method
Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.89. All the statements were bias, Harman's single-factor analysis was performed. All the state-
measure on a five-point Likert scale, anchoring at 1 (strongly disagree) ments were included in the factor analysis to conclude whether any
to 5 (strongly agree). The present study employed a self-administered single factor contributes more than 50% of the variance in the factor
standardized questionnaire for collecting the data. analysis or not. All the manifested variables were constraint to one
unrotated single factor using EFA in SPSS 20.0 software. The single
factor so generated exhibited a variance of 16.34%, which was lower
4 | DATA ANALYSIS than 50% total variance of the scale. This shows that there was no
such problem of common method bias in the present study (Aggarwal,
The proposed hypothesized model assigned the causal relationship Goyal, & Nobi, 2018).
between two exogenous variables (dimensions of structural empower-
ment and perceptions of distributive justice), one mediator (psycho-
logical empowerment), and two endogenous variables (affective 5 | RE SU LT S
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior). The demo-
graphic variables were taken as the control variable in the model. The In this section, the measurement model and the structural model was
two-step procedure proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was tested with the help of the AMOS.
used with the help of AMOS 18. In the first step, the measurement
model was tested for reliability and validity. In the second step, the
structural model was tested with the help of the structural equation 5.1 | Measurement model
modeling technique. A maximum likelihood estimation was used to
calculate the estimated path relationships. MLE was selected over In the present study, the structural empowerment was taken as multi-
OLS (Ordinary Least Square) as MLE is the technique that helps us in dimensional as the six factor model of SE showed better model fit
determining the parameters of the distribution that best describe the (CMIN = 158.468, DoF = 120, p < .01, CMIN/DoF = 1.321 ≤ 3,
given data. Hence, more robust estimations of the parameters can be RMSEA = 0.029, SRMR = 0.027, RMR = 0.044, PGFI = 0.672,
calculated through the MLE method. On the bases of modification TLI = 0.989, CFI = 0.992) than one factor model (CMIN = 3,414.578,
indices, various covariance's were drawn like age was correlated with DoF = 135, p < .01, CMIN/DoF = 25.293 ≤ 3, RMSEA = 0.250,
experience, income, marital status, area of belonging and qualification; SRMR = 0.204, RMR = 0.355, PGFI = 0.411, TLI = 0.192, CFI = 0.287).
qualification was correlated with experienced and area of belonging; The proposed measurement model was tested for two types of invari-
income and experience were correlated with marital status, and ance test, metric and configural invariance. Configural invariance
finally, income was correlated with age. Furthermore, to test the tested whether residual variance, intercepts and factor loadings are
mediating effect of psychological empowerment in the first model and equivalent in the proposed measurement model or not. Configural
affective commitment in the second model on the proposed relation- invariance means that the factor loadings of measurement items have
ships, the researcher used the bootstrapping technique with a bias- similar pattern of scores across the various groups of the measure-
corrected confidence interval at 95% confidence level. This method ment model (Rock, Wertz, & Flaugher, 1978; Steenkamp &
states that the standardized indirect effect is considered statistically Baumgartner, 1998). In configural invariance test we run the proposed
significant when bias-corrected confidence interval (lower bound and measurement model with two sub-groups having no constraints, that
8 of 17 AGGARWAL ET AL.

is, they were estimated freely. Results of the configural invariance test (Aggarwal, Mittal, Gupta, & Mittal, 2019). From Table 1 it can be scru-
depicted an acceptable model fit with CMIN = 4,236.2, p < .001, tinized that the values of Cronbach's alpha (α) and the values of com-
DoF = 3,266, CMIN/DoF = 1.297 ≤ 3 (Hair, Black, Babin, & posite reliability are more than the cut-off value of 0.7
Anderson, 2010), PGFI = 0.660 ≥ 0.50 (Wu, 2009), TLI = 0.928 ≥ 0.90 (Nunnally, 1978), which is the evidence of high internal consistency of
(Hu & Bentler, 1999), RMSEA = 0.028 ≤ 0.08 (Steiger, 1990), the factors. The construct validity of the model was measured through
SRMR = 0.048 ≤ 0.08 (Steiger, 1990), RMR = 0.075 ≤ 0.10 discriminant validity and convergent validity (Hair et al., 2006). In a
(Wu, 2009), CFI = 0.936 ≤ 0.09 (Hair et al., 2010). Hence, there is measurement model, convergent validity can be assessed by evaluat-
presence of configural invariance in the proposed model as the value ing whether the standardized factor loadings of each statement are
of model fit showed acceptable limits. Furthermore, the factor load- significant at its assigned factor or not (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
ings across the sub-groups were statistically significant, which is an The model fulfills the conditions of convergent validity as on evaluat-
evidence of configural invariance in the model. ing the model's measurement properties it depicted that the standard-
Metric invariance renders a firm examination of invariance by ized estimates (factor loadings) were above the specified criterion of
developing the concepts of scale intervals or equal metrics across the 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010) and were also significant at p < .01 (Hair,
group (Rock et al., 1978; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Metric Tatham, Anderson, & Black, 1998). Furthermore, the convergent valid-
invariance denotes that different measurement items are measured ity was assessed with the procedure prescribed by Hair et al. (2010),
following the equal metrics are the same scale intervals across the which states that Composite Reliability (CR) should be greater than
various groups (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). The presence of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and AVE should be greater than or
metric invariance was tested by comparing the values of CMIN and closer to 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The results of Table 1 showed
Dof of two models. All the factor loading was unconstrained (con- that the measurement model fulfills the conditions of convergent
figural invariance) in the first model, and all the factor loadings were validity (Dhaliwal, Mittal, Aggarwal, & Chand, 2019).
constrained to be equal across two sub-groups in the second model. Two methods assess discriminant validity in the present study.
There was insignificant change in fit measure (Δχ2 = 63.6, ΔD.F. = 61, Firstly, by comparing the values of correlation among constructs and
p = .385 > .05), which shows the presence of metric invariance. Fur- the values of the square root of AVE's (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). All
ther, all the values of model fit were above the specified criterion with the values of correlation among constructs in Table 1 are less than the
CMIN = 4,299.8, DoF = 3,327, p < .01, CMIN/DoF = 1.292 ≤ 3, square root of the AVE. Additionally, the discriminant validity was
RMSEA = 0.027, SRMR = 0.049, RMR = 0.083, PGFI = 0.669, assessed by the procedure prescribed by Hair et al. (2010), which sug-
TLI = 0.929, CFI = 0.936. Hence, we can proceed with these two sub- gest that Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) should be less than that of
groups and test the multi-group moderation as the results of metric Average Shared Variance (ASV) and ASV should be less than AVE
and configural invariance showed robust results. (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The results of Table 1 revealed strong evi-
The results of the measurement model showed that four state- dence of reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity of the model.
ments with code Civic1, Court3, Sport4, and Cons5 were removed These results of validity and Cronbach's alpha specifies that the latent
from the final analysis due to low standardized factor loadings of factors are robust to possible bias due to the presence of measure-
0.392, 0.344, 0.268, and 0.392 respectively. The results of the mea- ment error in the model. Additional, results also depicted that mea-
surement model showed strong reliability and validity of the model surement model renders an acceptable model fit with

TABLE 1 Reliability and validity of measurement model

CR AVE MSV ASV PE SUP INM RSC FOR INF OPP AFF OCB DJ
PE 0.86 0.68 0.03 0.02 0.82
SUP 0.84 0.63 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.80
INM 0.88 0.70 0.35 0.06 0.17 0.14 0.84
RSC 0.93 0.81 0.35 0.06 0.16 0.10 0.59 0.90
FOR 0.94 0.83 0.32 0.07 0.02 −0.21 −0.14 −0.07 0.91
INF 0.92 0.79 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.06 0.16 0.17 −0.10 0.89
OPP 0.95 0.69 0.42 0.09 0.15 −0.14 −0.07 −0.13 0.51 0.13 0.83
AFF 0.84 0.57 0.42 0.09 0.19 −0.02 0.04 −0.01 0.56 0.24 0.65 0.75
OCB 0.89 0.63 0.01 0.01 −0.08 0.10 −0.05 0.07 −0.01 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.79
DJ 0.96 0.84 0.08 0.02 0.12 0.06 0.22 0.29 0.02 0.06 0.00 −0.02 0.01 0.92

Note: Square root of AVE of each construct is represented by the bold values in the diagonal and the correlation between the constructs is represented by
off-diagonal values.
Abbreviations: AFF, affective commitment; ASV, average shared variance; AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; DJ, distributive jus-
tice; FOR, formal power; INF, informal power; INM, Information; MSV, maximum shared variance; OCB, organizational citizenship behavior; OPP, opportu-
nity; PE, psychological empowerment; RSC, resources; SUP, support.
AGGARWAL ET AL. 9 of 17

CMIN = 2,148.977, p < .001, DoF = 1,633, CMIN/D.F = 1.316 ≤ 3, 5.2 | Structural model
RMR =0.057 ≤ 0.10, SRMR = 0.036 ≤ 0.08, RMSEA = 0.029 ≤ 0.08,
GFI = 0.858 ≥ 0.80, AGFI = 0.835 ≥ 0.80, PGFI = 0.741 ≥ 0.50, Results of the model fit of the Structural model also depicted accept-
CFI = 0.965 ≥ 0.90. able values with CMIN = 244.284, p < .001, DoF = 84, CMIN/D.

TABLE 2 Structural model

Hypotheses Relationship Standardized estimate CR Hypothesis accepted
Hypothesis H1 OPP ! PE (+) 0.136 3.885*** Yes
Hypothesis H2 INM ! PE (+) 0.134 2.955** Yes
Hypothesis H3 SUP ! PE (+) 0.095 2.682** Yes
Hypothesis H4 RSC ! PE (+) −0.111 −2.427** No
Hypothesis H5 FOR ! PE (+) 0.689 19.453*** Yes
Hypothesis H6 INF ! PE (+) 0.288 8.237*** Yes
Hypothesis H7 DJ ! PE (+) 0.073 2.043** Yes
Hypothesis H8 PE ! AFF (+) 0.617 12.139*** Yes
Hypothesis H9 PE ! OCB (+) 0.158 2.196** Yes

***p-value <.01.
**p-value <.05.
Abbreviation: CR, critical ratio.

FIGURE 1 Proposed conceptual framework

10 of 17 AGGARWAL ET AL.

TABLE 3 Results of the bootstrapped mediation

Type of
Mediating relationship Estimatea p-value Estimateb p-value mediation
Opportunity towards affective commitment through 0.084 .001*** 0.055 .175* Full
psychological empowerment
Information towards affective commitment through 0.083 .002*** 0.009 .837* Full
psychological empowerment
Support towards affective commitment through 0.058 .008*** −0.096 .006*** Partial
psychological empowerment
Resources towards affective commitment through −0.068 .013** −0.144 .001*** Partial
psychological empowerment
Formal power towards affective commitment through 0.426 .001*** 0.094 .083* Full
psychological empowerment
Informal power towards affective commitment through 0.178 .001*** −0.002 .946* Full
psychological empowerment
Distributive justice towards affective commitment through .045 .031** .051 .138* Full
psychological empowerment
Opportunity towards organizational citizenship behavior 0.022 .023** −0.135 .017** Partial
through psychological empowerment
Information towards organizational citizenship behavior 0.021 .017** −0.182 .006*** Partial
through psychological empowerment
Support towards organizational citizenship behavior through 0.015 .022** 0.123 .017** Partial
psychological empowerment
Resources towards organizational citizenship behavior −0.017 .021** 0.186 .003*** Partial
through psychological empowerment
Formal power towards organizational citizenship behavior 0.109 .032** −0.099 .175* Full
through psychological empowerment
Informal power towards organizational citizenship behavior 0.046 .028** 0.063 .216* Full
through psychological empowerment
Distributive justice towards organizational citizenship 0.012 .034** 0.005 .903* Full
behavior through psychological empowerment

***p-value <.01.
**p-value <.05.
*p-value >.05.
a
Standardized Indirect Effects.
b
Standardized Direct Effects.

TABLE 4 Multi-group moderation

Standardized estimate

Hypothesis Relationship Public p-value Private p-value Z-score Moderation

Hypothesis H1 OPP ! PE (+) 0.144 .003 0.147 .008 0.042* No
Hypothesis H2 INM ! PE (+) 0.132 .037 0.112 .131 0.206* No
Hypothesis H3 SUP ! PE (+) 0.154 .002 0.061 .249 1.270* No
Hypothesis H4 RSC ! PE (+) −0.113 .051 −0.046 .491 −0.762* No
Hypothesis H5 FOR! PE (+) 0.463 .000 0.488 .000 0.490* No
Hypothesis H6 INF ! PE (+) 0.332 .000 0.210 .000 1.848* No
Hypothesis H7 DJ ! PE (+) 0.016 .666 0.126 .002 1.97** Yes
Hypothesis H8 PE ! AFF (+) 0.673 .000 0.544 .000 1.273* No
Hypothesis H9 PE ! OCB (+) 0.205 .067 0.070 .579 0.798* No

**p-value <.05.
*p-value >.05.
AGGARWAL ET AL. 11 of 17

F = 2.908 ≤ 3, RMR =0.083 ≤ 0.10, SRMR = 0.087 ≤ 0.08, 5.3 | Mediation results
RMSEA = 0.070 ≤ 0.08, GFI = 0.925 ≥ 0.80, AGFI = 0.879 ≥ 0.80,
PGFI = 0.572 ≥ 0.50, CFI = 0.922 ≥ 0.90. Based on modification indi- Results of the bootstrapped mediation analysis (Table 3) showed that
ces, different control variables were correlated with each other. the relationship between opportunity and affective commitment is
Results of the structural models show a very minimal effect of con- fully mediated through psychological empowerment. Further, the rela-
trol variable such that only marital status was significantly and posi- tionship between information and affective commitment is fully medi-
tively associated with affective commitment. No other control ated through psychological empowerment. However, the relationship
variable was significantly associated with any of the variables under between support and affective commitment is mediated through psy-
consideration. chological empowerment, but the strength of the mediation is partial.
In order to test the problem of endogeneity, we run the proposed A similar type of mediation was observed for the relationship between
structural model in reverse order. The results of the model fit of this resources and psychological empowerment. Nevertheless, formal
reversed model depicts the value of CMIN/D.F = 17.784, power, informal power, and perceptions of distributive justice affect
RMSEA = 0.208, RMR = 0.154, SRMR = 0.181, PGFI = 0.448, the affective commitment through psychological empowerment, and
CFI = 0.192, AGFI = 0.472, GFI = 0.616, AGFI = 0.472. The results of the type of mediation is full in these relationships. The results of
the model fit shows that the proposed structural model is having a Table 3 also depicted partial mediation of psychological empower-
better model fit than a reversed model. ment on the relationship between opportunity, information, support,
Results of Table 2 showed that “opportunity,” sub-dimension of resources, and organizational citizenship behavior. Whereas PE fully
structural empowerment, has a significant and positive impact on mediated the relationship between formal power, informal power, dis-
psychological empowerment (β = .136, t-value = 3.885). Hence, tributive justice, and organizational citizenship behavior.
hypothesis 1 was accepted. Further, the results of the path analysis
showed that information has a positive impact on employee's per-
ceptions of psychological empowerment (β = .134, t-value = 2.955). 5.4 | Results of the multi-group moderation
Therefore, a decision was taken to accept the second hypothesis. A analysis
similar type of results was observed for Hypothesis H3. Results
showed that employee's feeling of organizational support has a posi- Results of the multi-group moderation analysis (Table 4) depicted that
tive and significant impact on psychological empowerment (β = .095, except one relationship no other proposed relationship showed any
t-value = 2.682). The results of the path analysis do not render evi- type of moderation as the z-score for the majority of the relationship
dence for the acceptance of Hypothesis H4, which states the posi- is less than 1.96. The standardized estimates for the relationship
tive impact of professional respect on psychological empowerment. between information and PE, support and PE, respect and PE, infor-
Results showed significant and negative effect of professional mal power and PE, PE and affective commitment, PE and OCB are
respect on psychological empowerment (β = −.111, t-value = 2.427). higher for public sector employees than private-sector employees. It
Nevertheless, the results of Table 2 showed that there exists a posi- means that information, support, respect, and informal power play a
tive relationship between formal power and psychological empower- more vital role in affecting PE for employees working in the public
ment (β = .689, t-value = 19.453). Hence, Hypothesis H5 was sector than private-sector employees. Similarly, PE plays a more vital
accepted. Further, informal power has significant and positive impact role, for employees working in public sector employees, in affecting
on psychological empowerment (β = .288, t-value = 8.237). There- OCB and affective commitment.
fore, Hypothesis H6 was accepted. Next, Hypothesis H7 was also Apart from this, the relationship between perceptions of distribu-
accepted as the p-value of the relationship between perceptions of tive justice and PE is the only significant relationship in terms of
distributive justice and psychological empowerment is less than .05 multi-group moderation analysis. However, in the rest of the eight
(β = .073, t-value = 2.043). Results of the path analysis showed that hypotheses, there were no moderation effects among the proposed
out of all the exogenous variables, formal power is the most impor- relationships. Finally, there is a wide difference in the values of esti-
tant factor that affects the psychological empowerment as the stan- mates between public and private hospitals concerning the relation-
dardized factor loading for this relationship is highest followed by ship between organizational citizenship behavior and psychological
informal power, opportunity, informational, respect, support and dis- empowerment. The influence of informal power is more observed in
tributive justice respectively. Results also showed that psychological public hospitals as compared to private hospitals.
empowerment had a positive impact on both affective commitment
and organizational citizenship behavior. Results depicted that there
is positive relationship between psychological empowerment and 6 | DI SCU SSION
affective commitment (β = .617, t-value = 12.139). Hence, Hypothe-
sis H8 was accepted. Finally, the results of the structural model The purpose of the present study was to investigate the mediating
showed a positive relationship between psychological empowerment role of psychological empowerment on the relationship between the
and organizational citizenship behavior (β = .158, t-value = 2.196). dimensions of structural empowerment and distributive justice on
Hence, Hypothesis H9 was accepted. affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior of the
12 of 17 AGGARWAL ET AL.

employees. The results of the study depicted that nurses in our study hypothesized relationship. As previously, we have observed that there
feel a high degree of structural empowerment at their workplace, is a negative relationship between resources and psychological
which leads to higher perceptions of psychological empowerment. empowerment, and therefore if the distribution of these scarce
Furthermore, this feeling of PE leads to higher levels of organizational resources is unjustifiable, then it will lead to feelings of retaliation
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior among the among the employees (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Thirdly, the findings
employees. Four major findings evolved from the results of the pre- of the study manifested a significant positive effect of psychological
sent study. Firstly, the results of the study depicted that all the six empowerment on organizational citizenship behavior. Previous
dimensions of the structural empowerment have a significant relation- research also supported this finding of the present study (Conger &
ship with PE which is consistent with previous research findings Kanungo, 1988; Morrison, 1996; Spreitzer, 1995b; Spreitzer, 2008;
(Knol & Van Linge, 2009; Laschinger et al., 2007; Laschinger, Finegan, Wat & Shaffer, 2005). Apart from this, results also revealed a signifi-
et al., 2003; Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001b; Laschinger, cant and positive effect of PE on the affective commitment of the
Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk, 2001; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & employees. The findings of the study are supported by prior literature
Wilk, 2004; Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk, 2009). The results demon- which shows a positive relationship between PE and AC (Avolio
strated a positive association between five dimensions of structural et al., 2004; Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk, 2009; Liden et al., 2000; Liu,
empowerment (“opportunity, information, support, formal power, and Chiu, & Fellows, 2007; Seibert et al., 2011; Vacharakiat, 2008). Fur-
informal power”) and PE. In a multi-level study, Laschinger, Finegan, thermore, previous research has also depicted that higher levels of
and Wilk (2009) found a strong relationship between structural empowerment lead to higher levels of loyalty among employees
empowerment (group level) and psychological empowerment (individ- (Liden et al., 2000; Liu et al., 2007; Vacharakiat, 2008). Healthy human
ual level). At the same time, Armstrong, Laschinger, and Wong (2009) capital is an essential part of an organization to survive in this compet-
revealed a strong positive relationship among professional nursing itive era of the global scenario. Carless (2004) demonstrated that
practice environment and structural empowerment. In a similar type empowered human capital leads to an empowered organization.
of study, Laschinger and Finegan (2005a) also examined the effect of Therefore, to have positive behavioral and attitudinal organizational
workplace empowerment on the mental and physical health of nurses. consequences, a leader should try to create an empowered environ-
Furthermore, Laschinger, Almost, and Tuer (2003) examined the effect ment within the organization where employees can feel empowered,
of empowering workplace environment on the professional nursing motivated, and free. Empowering working conditions is an essential
practice that further affects the job satisfaction and turnover inten- feature to have a positive professional environment, which further
tions of the employees. The results of the present study showed that leads to various behavioral and attitudinal consequences.
resources have a negative effect on PE, which was contrary to our
hypothesized relationship. The moderation analysis also supported
that both public and private hospital nurses depicted negative coeffi- 7 | I M P L I C A T I O N OF TH E S T U D Y
cients. The probable reason for such kind of results might be that the
employees who are given access to more resources at their workplace The objective of the study was to examine the antecedents and con-
develop more expectations from their supervisors and might feel less sequences of psychological empowerment. The results of the research
empowered as compared to other employees. This negative relation- proposed that rather than changing the individual characteristics, the
ship was stronger in public sector employees as compared to private leader should improve the structure of the organization and should
sector nurses. The reason for this type of results might be the nature provide access to structural empowerment, which ultimately leads to
of their sectors in which they are working as government sectors pro- positive behavioral and attitudinal organizational consequences such
vide more job stability than private sectors, and therefore public sec- as organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.
tor employees might have higher demands for higher-order needs like Hence, a manager needs to foster structural empowerment by giving
demand for scarce resources at their workplace. The results of the challenging tasks to the employees, timely and accurate information
study affirm the claim of Kanter's theory that postulates that work- and resources, formal and informal power to the employees, and sup-
place empowerment helps the employee in attaining their organiza- port to employees. By enhancing the feeling of structural empower-
tional goals in an effective way. As an individual's behaviors and ment, the employees will have more meaning and confidence in the
attitudes are affected by the workplace environment, therefore, work they do. Further, the manager should give autonomy to the
according to Kanter's theory, a manager needs to alter the organiza- employees in performing their challenging tasks. This will provide a
tional structure rather than changing the individual character. It will feeling of high impact of an individual's effort in the overall perfor-
lead to increase in their work effectiveness, and it might further lead mance of the organization. When an employee feels a higher level of
to higher organizational commitment and citizenship behavior (Avolio structural and psychological empowerment, then they will have a high
et al., 2004; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; DeCicco, Laschinger, & commitment towards their organization, and they will perform the
Kerr, 2006; Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk, 2009; Wat & Shaffer, 2005; duties which are beyond their job description. Further, this enhances,
Yang, Liu, Huang, & Zhu, 2013). Secondly, the results of the study rev- structural and psychological empowerment has various behavioral and
ealed a negative relationship between distributive justice and psycho- attitudinal consequences such as turnover intention, job strain, and
logical empowerment, which is again opposite to our proposed job satisfaction, innovation, and task performance. Kanter (1977) has
AGGARWAL ET AL. 13 of 17

2
given some guidelines for making the work environment effective in [Link]
which the manager has to focus more on coordination rather than on remains-a-lower-middle-income-nation

control. Further, understanding employee needs, creating a supportive

atmosphere, and engaging in confidence-building practices would also RE FE RE NCE S
likely to contribute to a greater feeling of psychological empowerment Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management
(Conger, 1989; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1999). Review, 21, 254–285.
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned help-
lessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 87, 49–74.
8 | L I M I T A TI O NS A ND F U T U R E S CO P E O F Afsar, B., & Badir, Y. (2016). The mediating role of psychological empower-
T H E ST UD Y ment on the relationship between person-organization fit and innova-
tive work behaviour. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management,
7(1), 5–26.
Despite the useful information rendered on the antecedents and conse-
Aggarwal, A., Chand, P. A., Jhamb, D., & Mittal, A. (2020). Leader-member
quences of psychological empowerment by this study, some limitations exchange, work engagement and psychological withdrawal behaviour:
must be taken into considerations while making generalizations of the The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Frontiers in Psy-
results demonstrated by the present study. The data collected from the chology, 11, 1–17.
Aggarwal, A., Dhaliwal, R. S., & Nobi, K. (2018). Impact of structural
respondents were self-reported that causes an issue of common method
empowerment on organizational commitment: The mediating role of
variance. However, common method variance is not an issue in those women's psychological empowerment. Vision, 22(3), 284–294.
studies that use a well-validated multi-statement questionnaire as used Aggarwal, A., Goyal, J., & Nobi, K. (2018). Examining the impact of
in the current study (Spector, 1987). According to Spector (1987), it is of leader-member exchange on perceptions of organizational justice: The
mediating role of perceptions of organizational politics. Theoretical
more concern in those researchers who use a poorly designed question-
Economics Letters, 8(11), 2308–2329.
naire or single statement scales. Future studies can collect the data at
Aggarwal, A., Mittal, R., Gupta, S., & Mittal, A. (2019). Internet of things
two separate points in time as collecting data in this way potentially driven perceived value co-creation in smart cities of the future: A PLS-
reduces the issue of common method bias. Another limitation of the SEM based predictive model. Journal of Computational and Theoretical
study is its cross-sectional design, which precludes a strong causal rela- Nanoscience, 16(9), 4053–4058.
Aggarwal, A., & Singh, R. (2016). Exploring the Nomological network of
tionship between the variables (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 2013). That is,
organizational citizenship behavior: A review of dimensions, anteced-
we cannot study the causal relationship between SE, distributive justice, ents and consequences. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3),
PE, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. 16–39.
Future researchers can use a longitudinal research design to address this Ahadi, S. (2012). Mediating role of psychological empowerment in rela-
tionships between structural empowerment and organizational culture,
limitation. However, according to Serlin (1987), the effect of this limita-
and workplace outcomes among academics in Malaysian research uni-
tion can be minimized to some extent if a researcher uses prior theory in versities (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia).
predicting the results, which further helps in generalizing the results to Ahadi, S., & Suandi, T. (2014). Structural empowerment and organizational
the population. Spector, Chen, and O'Connell (2000) stated that in the commitment: The mediating role of psychological empowerment in
Malaysian Research Universities. Journal of Asian Development Studies,
past, these types of cross-sectional studies had obtained undue criticism.
3(1), 44–65.
Another limitation of the study was the nature of the organization (public Albrecht, S. L., & Andreetta, M. (2011). The influence of empowering lead-
and private hospitals) and the characteristics of the subjects. The present ership, empowerment and engagement on affective commitment and
study was conducted on hospital employees, but we are not sure turnover intentions in community health service workers. Leadership in
Health Services, 24(3), 228–237.
whether we can generalize the results into other sectors or not. Hence,
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
future researchers can include samples from different organizations so affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization.
that results can be generalized to the masses. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.
Amor, A. M., Vázquez, J. P. A., & Faíña, J. A. (2020). Transformational lead-
ership and work engagement: Exploring the mediating role of struc-
FUND ING
tural empowerment. European Management Journal, 38(1), 169–178.
No external funding was taken for the present research.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
None. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making
causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quar-
terly, 21(6), 1086–1120.
ORCID Armstrong, K., Laschinger, H., & Wong, C. (2009). Workplace empower-
Arun Aggarwal [Link] ment and magnet hospital characteristics as predictors of patient
Sanjay Rastogi [Link] safety climate. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 24(1), 55–62.
Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207–242.
ENDNOTES Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational lead-
1 ership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological
[Link]
14 of 17 AGGARWAL ET AL.

empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of temporary, and self-employed workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951–968. 72, 81–94.
Ayala Calvo, J. C., & García, G. M. (2018). Hardiness as moderator of the Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree.
relationship between structural and psychological empowerment on The Academy of Management Executive, 9, 21–31.
burnout in middle managers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models
Psychology, 91(2), 362–384. with unobserved variables and measurement error. Journal of Market-
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation ing Research, 18, 39–50.
models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. Fowler Jr, F. J. (2013). Survey research methods. Sage publications.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral Fulford, M. D., & Enz, C. A. (1995). The impact of empowerment on service
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. employees. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(2), 161–175.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Gholifar, E., & Gholami, H. (2014). The study of affecting factors on faculty
Psychologist, 37, 122–147. members' psychological empowerment. Journal of Applied Research in
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cogni- Higher Education, 6(1), 63–74.
tive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17,
Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184. 183–211.
Bandura, A. (1997). Editorial. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12 Gray, A. M., & Phillips, V. L. (1994). Turnover, age, and length of service: A
(1), 8–10. comparison of nurse and other staff in the National Health Service.
Becker, G. S. (2009). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(5), 819–827.
with special reference to education, United States of America: Univer- Gregory, B. T., Albritton, M. D., & Osmonbekov, T. (2010). The mediating
sity of Chicago Press. role of psychological empowerment on the relationships between P–O
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. fit, job satisfaction, and in-role performance. Journal of Business and
New York, NY: Collins Business. Psychology, 25(4), 639–647.
Byham, W. C. (1988). Zapp! The lightening of empowerment. New York, NY: Guerrero, S., Chênevert, D., Vandenberghe, C., Tremblay, M., &
Harmony Books. Ayed, A. K. B. (2018). Employees' psychological empowerment and
Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the rela- performance: How customer feedback substitutes for leadership. Jour-
tionship between psychological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of nal of Services Marketing, 32(7), 868–879.
Business and Psychology, 18(4), 405–425. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addi-
Casey, M., Saunders, J., & O'hara, T. E. R. E. S. A. (2010). Impact of critical son-Wesley.
social empowerment on psychological empowerment and job satisfac- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate
tion in nursing and midwifery settings. Journal of Nursing Management, data analysis. Pearson, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
18(1), 24–34. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.
Cho, J., Laschinger, H. S., & Wong, C. (2006). Workplace empowerment, (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear-
work engagement and organizational commitment of new graduate son Prentice Hall.
nurses. Nursing Leadership-Academy of Canadian Executive Nurses, 19 Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate
(3), 43–60. data analysis. London, England: Prentice-Hall International.
Choi, S. L., Goh, C. F., Adam, M. B. H., & Tan, O. K. (2016). Transforma- Hancer, M., & George, R. T. (2003). Psychological empowerment of non-
tional leadership, empowerment, and job satisfaction: The mediating supervisory employees working in full-service restaurants. Interna-
role of employee empowerment. Human Resources for Health, 14 tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 22(1), 3–16.
(73), 1–14. Hechanova, M. R. M., Alampay, R. B. A., & Franco, E. P. (2006). Psychologi-
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A cal empowerment, job satisfaction and performance among Filipino
construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, service workers. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(1), 72–78.
386–400. Helmy, I., Adawiyah, W. R., & Banani, A. (2019). Linking psychological
Conger, J. A. (1989). Leadership: The art of empowering others. The Acad- empowerment, knowledge sharing, and employees' innovative behav-
emy of Management Executive, 3(1), 17–24. ior in SMEs. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 14(2), 66–79.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Inte- Herrenkohl, R. C., Judson, G. T., & Heffner, J. A. (1999). Defining and mea-
grating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), suring employee empowerment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci-
471–482. ence, 35, 373–389.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Covariance structure analysis: Conventional
work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590. criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination Huang, Y. T., Liu, H., & Huang, L. (2020). How transformational and contingent
in human behavior. New York, NY: Springer. reward leaderships influence university faculty's organizational commit-
DeCicco, J., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Kerr, M. (2006). Perceptions of empow- ment: The mediating effect of psychological empowerment. Studies in
erment and respect. Effect on nurses' organizational commitment in Higher Education, 1–18. [Link]
nursing homes. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 32(5), 49–56. Huffman, J. J. (1995). Staff Nurses' Perceptions of Work Empowerment
Dhaliwal, M. S., Mittal, A., Aggarwal, A., & Chand, P. K. (2019). Determining and Control Over Nursing Practice in Community Hospital Settings.
the factors affecting the selection of private universities and colleges Unpublished Master's Thesis. London: The University of Western
in Indian context: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Ontario.
Advanced Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, 11(8), 2579–2590. Iglesias, V., & Vázquez, R. (2001). The moderating effects of exclusive deal-
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organi- ing agreements on distributor satisfaction. Journal of Strategic Market-
zational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. ing, 9(3), 215–231.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59. Jain, S., Khan, M. N., & Mishra, S. (2017). Understanding consumer behav-
Felfe, J., Schmook, R., Schyns, B., & Six, B. (2008). Does the form of ior regarding luxury fashion goods in India based on the theory of
employment make a difference?—Commitment of traditional, planned behavior. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 11(1), 4–21.
AGGARWAL ET AL. 15 of 17

Jha, S. (2011). Influence of psychological empowerment on affective, nor- Laschinger, H. K. S., Almost, J., & Tuer, H. D. (2003). Workplace empower-
mative and continuance commitment. Journal of Indian Business ment and magnet hospital characteristics: Making the link. Journal of
Research, 3(4), 263–282. Nursing Administration, 33(7/8), 410–422.
Jha, S. (2018). Team psychological safety and team performance: A moder- Laschinger, H. K. S., & Finegan, J. (2005a). Empowering nurses for work
ated mediation analysis of psychological empowerment. International engagement and health in hospital settings. Journal of Nursing Adminis-
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(4), 903–924. tration, 35(10), 439–449.
Joo, B. K., & Jo, S. J. (2017). The effects of perceived authentic leadership Laschinger, H. K. S., & Finegan, J. (2005b). Using empowerment to build
and core self-evaluations on organizational citizenship behavior. Lead- trust and respect in the workplace: A strategy for addressing the nurs-
ership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 463–481. ing shortage. Nursing Economics, 23(1), 6–13.
Joo, B. K., & Shim, J. H. (2010). Psychological empowerment and Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J. (2001b). Promoting nurses
organizational commitment: The moderating effect of organizational health: Effect of empowerment on job strain and work satisfaction.
learning culture. Human Resource Development International, 13(4), Nursing Economics, 19, 42–52.
425–441. Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J. (2001c). The impact of work-
Kamalian, A. R., Yaghoubi, N. M., & Moloudi, J. (2010). Survey of relation- place empowerment and organizational trust on staff nurses work sat-
ship between organizational justice and empowerment (a case study). isfaction and organizational commitment. Health Care Management
European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 24 Review, 26(3), 7–23.
(2), 165–171. Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Almost, J. (2001). Testing
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Karasek's demands-control model in restructured healthcare settings:
Basic Books. Effects of job strain on staff nurses' quality of work life. Journal of
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York, NY: Simon & Nursing Administration, 31(5), 233–243.
Schuster. Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2001). Impact of
Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation (2nd ed.). structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing
New York, NY: Basic Books. work settings: Expanding Kanter's model. Journal of Nursing Adminis-
Kim, J. K. (2007). A comparison of organizational commitment, in-role, tration, 31(5), 260–272.
extra-role behavior of regular employees and irregular employees in Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2003). Workplace
hotel companies. Journal of Korean Academic Society of Hospitality empowerment as a predictor of nurse burnout in restructured
Administration, 39, 61–79. healthcare settings. Hospital Quarterly, 6(4), 2–11.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudi-
and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management nal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satis-
Journal, 42, 58–74. faction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 527–554.
Kiyak, H. A., Namazi, K. H., & Kahana, E. F. (1997). Job commitment and Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. (2009). Context matters: The
turnover among women working in facilities serving older persons. impact of unit leadership and empowerment on nurses' organizational
Research on Aging, 19(2), 223–246. commitment. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 39(5),
Kizilos, P. (1990). Caring about empowerment. Training, December, 228–235.
47–56. Laschinger, H. K. S., & Havens, D. (1996). Staff nurse work empowerment
Kluska, K. M., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Kerr, M. S. (2004). Staff nurse and perceived control over nursing practice. Conditions for work
empowerment and effort-reward imbalance. Canadian Journal of Nurs- effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration, 26(9), 27–35.
ing Leadership, 17(1), 112–128. Laschinger, H. K. S., Nosko, A., Wilk, P., & Finegan, J. (2014). Effects of
Knol, J., & Van Linge, R. (2009). Innovative behaviour: The effect of struc- unit empowerment and perceived support for professional nursing
tural and psychological empowerment on nurses. Journal of Advanced practice on unit effectiveness and individual nurse well-being: A
Nursing, 65(2), 359–370. time-lagged study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(12),
Kõiv, K., Liik, K., & Heidmets, M. (2019). School leadership, teacher's psy- 1615–1623.
chological empowerment and work-related outcomes. International Laschinger, H. K. S., Purdy, N., & Almost, J. (2007). The impact of leader-
Journal of Educational Management, 33(7), 1501–1514. member exchange quality, empowerment, and core self-evaluation on
Kong, H., Sun, N., & Yan, Q. (2016). New generation, psychological nurse manager's job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37
empowerment: Can empowerment lead to career competencies and (3), 221–229.
career satisfaction? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Laschinger, H. K. S., Wilk, P., Cho, J., & Greco, P. (2009). Empowerment,
Management, 28(11), 2553–2569. engagement and perceived effectiveness in nursing work environ-
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empower- ments: Does experience matter? Journal of Nursing Management, 17(5),
ment as a multi-dimensional construct: A construct validity test. Edu- 636–646.
cational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 127–142. Laschinger, H. K. S., Wong, C., McMahon, L., & Kaufmann, C. (1999).
Kutzscher, L. (1994). Staff nurses' perceptions of power and degree of partici- Leader behaviour impact on staff nurse empowerment, job tension
pative management: A test of Kanter's structural theory of power. and work effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration, 29(5),
Unpublished Master's Thesis. London, Ontario: University of Western 28–39.
Ontario. Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Belmont, CA:
Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J., & King, C. E. (2015). Empowering employee sus- Brooks/Cole.
tainability: Perceived organizational support toward the environment. Lee, A. N., & Nie, Y. (2014). Understanding teacher empowerment:
Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 207–220. Teachers' perceptions of principal's and immediate supervisor's
Laschinger, H. K. S. (2004). Hospital nurses' perceptions of respect and empowering behaviours, psychological empowerment and work-
organizational justice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 34(7–8), related outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 67–79.
354–364. Liden, R. C., & Arad, S. (1996). A power perspective of empowerment and
Laschinger, H. K. S. (2008). Effect of empowerment on professional prac- work groups: Implications for human resources management research.
tice environments, work satisfaction, and patient care quality: Further Research in personnel and human resources management, 14, 205–252.
testing the nursing work life model. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 23 Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the
(4), 322–330. mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations
16 of 17 AGGARWAL ET AL.

between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407–416. 88(5), 879–903.
Lim, H. R. (2007). An empirical study on the effects of employment rela- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
tions characteristics on organizational commitment with respect to Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust
employment status in K Broadcasting's employees. Journal of Korean in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The
Association of Human Resource Development, 9(1), 97–122. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.
Limpanitgul, T., Boonchoo, P., Kulviseachana, S., & Photiyarach, S. (2017). Prasad, A. (2001). Understanding workplace empowerment as inclusion: A
The relationship between empowerment and the three-component historical investigation of the discourse of difference in the United
model of organisational commitment: An empirical study of Thai States. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(1), 51–59.
employees working in Thai and American airlines. International Journal Prasad, A., & Eylon, D. (2001). Narrative past traditions of participation
of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(2), 227–242. and inclusion: Historic perspectives on workplace empowerment. Jour-
Liu, M. M. A., Chiu, W. M., & Fellows, R. (2007). Enhancing commitment nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(1), 5–14.
through work empowerment. Engineering, Construction and Architec- Priyadharshany, A. J., & Sujatha, S. (2015). Does structural empowerment
tural Management, 14(6), 568–580. impact on job satisfaction via psychological empowerment? A media-
Lowery, B. J., & Jacobsen, B. S. (1984). On the consequences of over- tion analysis. Global Management Review, 10(1), 23–42.
turning turnover: A study of performance and turnover. Nursing Qiao, K., Khilji, S., & Wang, X. (2009). High-performance work systems,
Research, 33(6), 363–367. organizational commitment, and the role of demographic features in
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. the People's Republic of China. The International Journal of Human
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614. Resource Management, 20(11), 2311–2330.
McDermott, K., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Shamian, J. (1996). Work empower- Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. (1999). The road to empowerment: Seven
ment and organizational commitment. Nursing Management, 27(5), 44–47. questions every leader should consider. IEEE Engineering Management
Meng, L., Liu, Y., Liu, H., Hu, Y., Yang, J., & Liu, J. (2015). Relationships Review, 27, 21–28.
among structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, intent Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2013). Empowerment, organizational commitment,
to stay and burnout in nursing field in mainland China—Based on a and voice behavior in the hospitality industry: Evidence from a multi-
cross-sectional questionnaire research. International Journal of Nursing national sample. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 136–148.
Practice, 21(3), 303–312. Rock, D. A., Wertz, C. E., & Flaugher, R. L. (1978). The use of analysis of
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of covariance structures for comparing the psychometric properties of
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1 multiple variables across populations. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
(1), 61–89. 13, 403–418.
Miller, P. A., Goddard, P., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2000). Evaluating physical Sabiston, J. A., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (1995). Staff nurse work empower-
therapists' perception of empowerment using Kanter's theory of struc- ment and perceived autonomy. Journal of Nursing Administration, 125
tural power in organizations. Physical Therapy, 81(12), 1880–1888. (9), 42–50.
Morrison, E. W. (1996). Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link Safari, A., Adelpanah, A., Soleimani, R., Aqagoli, P. H., Eidizadeh, R., &
between HRM practices and service quality. Human Resource Manage- Salehzadeh, R. (2020). The effect of psychological empowerment on
ment (1968–1998), 35(4), 493. job burnout and competitive advantage: The mediating role of organi-
Mostafa, A. M. S. (2017). The mediating role of positive affect on the rela- zational commitment and creativity. Management Research, 18(1),
tionship between psychological empowerment and employee out- 47–71.
comes: A longitudinal study. Evidence-based HRM: A global forum for Salimi, J., & Abdi, A. (2018). On the relationship between psychological
empirical scholarship, 5(3), 266–282. Emerald Publishing Limited. empowerment and job satisfaction of teachers: Investigating the medi-
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of ator role of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of School Psy-
organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), chology, 6(4), 70–98.
224–247. Schermuly, C. C., Schermuly, R. A., & Meyer, B. (2011). Effects of vice-prin-
Mufti, M., Xiaobao, P., Shah, S. J., Sarwar, A., & Zhenqing, Y. (2020). Influ- cipals' psychological empowerment on job satisfaction and burnout.
ence of leadership style on job satisfaction of NGO employee: The International Journal of Educational Management, 25(3), 252–264.
mediating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Public Affairs, Seibert, S. E., Silver, S., & Sashkin, M. (2001). Empowerment climate: A
20(1), e1983. multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction.
Najafi, S., Noruzy, A., Azar, H. K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Dalvand, M. R. In Paper presented at 16th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial
(2011). Investigating the relationship between organizational justice, and Organisational Psychology. San Diego, CA.
psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, organizational commit- Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment
ment and organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical model. Afri- to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, perfor-
can Journal of Business Management, 5(13), 5241–5248. mance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3),
Ning, S., Zhong, H., Libo, W., & Qiujie, L. (2009). The impact of nurse 332–349.
empowerment on job satisfaction. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and conse-
2642–2648. quences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.
O'Brien, J. L. (2010). Structural empowerment, psychological empower- Serlin, R. C. (1987). Hypothesis testing, theory building, and the philosophy
ment and burnout in registered staff nurses working in outpatient dial- of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 365–371.
ysis centers (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-Graduate Shah, T. A., Khattak, M. N., Zolin, R., & Shah, S. Z. A. (2019). Psychological
School-Newark). empowerment and employee attitudinal outcomes. Management
Parasuraman, S. (1989). Nursing turnover: An integrated model. Research Research Review, 42(7), 797–817.
in Nursing and Health, 12(4), 267–277. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2013). Measurement, design, and analysis: experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho-
An integrated approach. United States of America: Psychology Press. logical Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Singh, S. K., & Singh, A. P. (2019). Interplay of organizational justice, psy-
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the chological empowerment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job
AGGARWAL ET AL. 17 of 17

satisfaction in the context of circular economy. Management Decision, Wiley, D. M. (1999). Impact of locus of control and empowerment on organi-
57(4), 937–952. zational commitment. Doctoral dissertation, United States International
Singh, J., Chand, P., Mittal, A., & Aggarwal, A. (2020). High-performance University.
work system and organizational citizenship behaviour at the shop floor. Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. K. (2013). Authentic leadership, perfor-
Benchmarking: An International Journal. Vol. Ahead-of-Print No. Ahead-of- mance, and job satisfaction: The mediating role of empowerment.
Print., 27, 1369–1398. [Link] Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(4), 947–959.
Singh, M., & Sarkar, A. (2019). Role of psychological empowerment in the Wu, M. L. (2009). Structural equation modeling: Amos operation and applica-
relationship between structural empowerment and innovative behav- tion. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book Inc.
ior. Management Research Review, 42(4), 521–538. Xu, Z., & Yang, F. (2018). The cross-level effect of authentic leadership on
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles teacher emotional exhaustion: The chain mediating role of structural and
of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied psychological empowerment. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 12, 1–11.
Psychology, 82(3), 434–443. Yang, J., Liu, Y., Huang, C., & Zhu, L. (2013). Impact of empowerment on
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect professional practice environments and organizational commitment
and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of among nurses: A structural equation approach. International Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72(3), 438–443. Nursing Practice, 19(S1), 44–55.
Spector, P. E., Chen, P. Y., & O'Connell, B. J. (2000). A longitudinal study of rela- Zhang, H., & Agarwal, N. C. (2009). The mediating roles of organizational
tions between job stressors and job strains while controlling for prior nega- justice on the relationships between HR practices and workplace out-
tive affectivity and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 211–218. comes: An investigation in China. The International Journal of Human
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995a). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Resource Management, 20(3), 676–693.
Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Man- Zhang, X., Ye, H., & Li, Y. (2018). Correlates of structural empowerment,
agement Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. psychological empowerment and emotional exhaustion among regis-
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995b). An empirical examination of a comprehensive tered nurses: A meta-analysis. Applied Nursing Research, 42, 9–16.
model of psychological empowerment in the workplace. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 601–629.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a common ground in defining empower-
ment. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 10, 31–62. Dr. Arun Aggarwal is currently working as Assistant Professor at
Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years Chitkara University Punjab India. He completed his Ph.D. from
of research on empowerment at work. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper Punjabi University Patiala, Punjab, India. His area of interest is
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 54–72). Thousand
human resource management, organizational behavior, and psy-
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to chology. He has various publications in National and International
lead: The role of psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of journals. He has published papers in journals like Frontiers in Psy-
Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 511–526. chology, Benchmarking: An International Journal, European Busi-
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement
ness Review, Vision, Journal of Finance and Data Science,
invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 25(1), 78–107. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, Journal of
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An inter- Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience, etc. He has exper-
val estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. tise in SPSS and AMOS software.
Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1997). Understanding and overcoming super-
visor resistance during the transition to employee empowerment. Dr. Kamrunnisha Nobi is currently working as Assistant Professor
Research in Organizational Change and Development, 10, 169–196. at Mata Ganga Khalsa College, Manji Sahib Kottan, Panjab Univer-
Strawn, C. (1994). Beyond the buzz word: Empowerment in community out-
sity Chandigarh, India. She completed her Ph.D. from Punjabi Uni-
reach and education. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 159–174.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empow- versity Patiala, Punjab, India. Her area of Interest work include
erment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy management, Islamic finance and banking.
of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681.
Ugwu, F. O., Onyishi, I. E., & Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M. (2014). Linking Dr. Sanjay Rastogi is currently working as Professor and Head
organizational trust with employee engagement: The role of psycho- (Department of Quantitative Techniques) at Indian Institute of
logical empowerment. Personnel Review, 43(3), 377–400. Foreign Trade (IIFT), New Delhi, India. His area of expertise is
Vacharakiat, M. (2008). The relationships of empowerment, job satisfac-
quantitative techniques and analysis. He has various publications
tion, and organizational commitment among Filipino and American
registered nurses working in the USA. Unpublished Doctoral, Univer- in national and international journals.
sity of George Mason.
Wagner, J. I., Cummings, G., Smith, D. L., Olson, J., Anderson, L., &
Warren, S. (2010). The relationship between structural empowerment
and psychological empowerment for nurses: A systematic review.
Journal of Nursing Management, 18(4), 448–462. How to cite this article: Aggarwal A, Nobi K, Rastogi S. Linking
Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influences structural empowerment and distributive justice to employee's
on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in behavioral and attitudinal consequences: Testing the
the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review, 34(4), 406–422.
mediating role of psychological empowerment. J Public Affairs.
Widger, K., Pye, C., Cranley, L., Wilson-Keates, B., Squires, M., &
Tourangeau, A. (2007). Generational differences in acute care nurses. 2020;e2418. [Link]
Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 20(1), 49–61.