See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270636497

Motivation for Achievement and Structural

Workplace Empowerment among Palestinian
Healthcare Professionals

Article in Perspectives on Global Development and Technology January 2013

DOI: 10.1163/15691497-12341273

CITATION READS

1 109

2 authors, including:

Randa I Nasser
Birzeit University
9 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Randa I Nasser on 03 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PERSPECTIVES
ON GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT
AND
TEC HNOLOGY
PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 brill.com/pgdt

Motivation for Achievement and Structural

Workplace Empowerment among Palestinian
Healthcare Professionals

Randa Nasser, Ph.D.

Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Birzeit University
rannasser@gmail.com

Belal A. Saadeh, Ph.D., RN

School of Nursing
University of Maine

Abstract
This study tests Kanters theory of structural workplace empowerment. It maintains that previ-
ous research that attempted to do so failed to account for the effect of an important personal
characteristici.e. employees achievement motivation. This body of research also failed to
uncover the mechanisms by which personal characteristics of employees influence their per-
ceived empowerment. Data was collected from a sample of 154 hospital nurses, in two major
Palestinian hospitals, through a survey design and self-administered questionnaire. The results of
multivariate regression analyses and path-analysis indicate that perceived empowerment is indi-
rectly influenced by personal factors (including educational qualifications, experience, position,
and motivation towards achievement) through more direct structural determinants (access to
formal and informal lines of power). More significantly, motivation has a directalbeit weak
impact on perceived empowerment, after the effects of the more proximate structural determi-
nants are controlled for.

Keywords
Palestine, healthcare professionals, structural empowerment, motivation

1.Introduction and Literature Review

Workers empowerment and wellbeing are often considered essential ingre-
dients for the functioning and development of organizations and societies at
large (OToole and Lawler, 2006). While profit-oriented organizations are typi-
cally not known for their concern for workers wellbeing, over the last three
decades, many organizations have begun to frame their productivity in light
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15691497-12341273
544 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560

of workers empowerment (Lawler, Mohrman and Benson, 2001; Sarmiento,

Laschinger and Iwasiw 2003; Sprietzer 2007), creativity (Zhang and Partol
2010), satisfaction (Laschinger and Havens 1996), burn-out (Greco, Laschinger
and Wong 2006; Sarmiento et al. 2003; Hatcher and Laschinger 1996), effi-
cacy (Laschinger and Shamian 1994; Laschinger and Havens 1996; Laschinger
and Wong 1999), commitment (Beaulieu et al. 1995; McDermott et al. 1996;
Laschinger et al. 2000, 2001; Wilson and Laschinger 1994), and a host of other
characteristics that might impede the maximization of output (Choi 2006; Pfef-
fer 1996; Pfeffer, Cialdini, Hanna and Knopoff 1998; Sarmiento 2004; Sprietzer
2007). In this research we aim to examine the impact of personal and structural
determinants of employees perceived workplace empowerment, as well as to
delineate the mechanisms of their influence.
The definition of the term empowerment is largely contested. Some argue
that the concept of work empowerment takes on multiple forms across differ-
ent individuals, is contextually embedded, shifts over time (Rappaport 1984;
Zimmerman 1990, 1995), and has not yet been systematically articulated
(Tjosvold et al. 1998 p. 624). Nonetheless, during the last three decades, the
concept has become one of the most popular topics in organizational and
sociological studies (Appelbaum and Honeggar 1998; Honald 1997; Thorlakson
1996; Yoon 2001). In fact, it seems that employee empowerment has become a
workplace panacea.
Amongst the plethora of definitions of the term that have been constructed,
two primary, yet distinct conceptualizations have been formally operational-
ized and employed in a number of empirical research studies (Spreitzer 2007).
One of these definitions refers to structural empowerment, focusing on employ-
ees access to organizational structures and decision-making processes, such
as opportunities, information, resources, and supportall of which enhance
workers performance (Blua and Alba 1982; Kanter 1977, 1993; Laschinger 1996).
The second main definition refers to psychological empowerment, focusing on
how workers feel about their role in the organization. It basically taps into the
individuals intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, processes that have also
been shown to be important to organizational outcomes (Conger and Kanungo
1988; Spreitzer 1995; Thomas and Velthouse 1990; Yoon 2001).
In addition to the contestation over the meaning of the term, there is a
debate around the relative importance of the different determinants of employ-
ees empowerment, whereby the structural characteristics of the work place
are thought to take precedence over the employees personal characteristics
in their achievement of empowerment (Conger and Kanungo 1988; Honold
1997; Kanter 1977, 1993; Laschinger 1996; Spreitzer 1995; Thomas and Velthouse
 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 545

1990). We seek to study structural empowerment as proposed by Kanter (1977,

1993), in order to examine how it is relatively impacted both by occupational
structures as well as by a specific personal characteristic that has not yet been
examined as a determinant of empowermenti.e. employees motivation for
achievementin a Palestinian context.
In her study Men and Women of the Corporation, Kanter (1977, 1993) claims
that workplace empowerment of both employees and managers is determined
more by their positions and the occupational structures of power they wield
i.e. access to formal and informal lines of powerthan by their personal char-
acteristics or work relationships. This perspective deems empowerment to be
a set of opportunities and constraints embedded in jobs, organizations, and
societies (Yoon 2002)as opposed to being embedded in personality charac-
teristics and personal relations. Over the past two decades, a number of studies
have attempted to test Kanters propositions regarding the relative importance
of personal versus structural determinants of workplace empowerment (Greco
et al. 2006; Finegan and Laschinger 2001; Laschinger, Sabiston and Kutszcher
1997; Laschinger et al. 1999; Miller, Godant, and Laschinger 2001; Pitts 2005;
Sagaria 1980; Sarmiento et al. 2004). These studies examine the relative effects
of structural factorssuch as access to formal and informal lines of power that
individuals perceive they have access toas well as individuals work positions
vis--vis certain personal attributes such as gender, educational qualifications,
years of experience, and age. Their results demonstrated that the effects of the
above-mentioned personal attributes on perceived empowerment become
insignificant when the effects of occupational structural factorse.g., access
to formal and informal lines of powerare controlled for in the same multiple
regression equation.
While we contend that structural factors may be paramount in determin-
ing employees empowerment and work efficacy, we also arguein agreement
with Spreitzer (2007)that personal factors are also important determinants
of empowerment, and thus their impact should not be underestimated. Spreitzer
(2007: 8) has succinctly described the interrelationship between structural and
psychological empowerment as follows:

while the social-structural perspective is limited because it is organizationally-centric,

the psychological perspective is also limited because it is individually-centric. A com-
plete understanding of empowerment at work requires the integration of both per-
spectives. We need to understand how social-structural empowerment can enable
psychological empowermentas well as understand how beliefs of psychological
empowerment can enable the development of more social-structural empowerment
through proactive behaviors aimed at changing the systems.
546 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560

In this research we seek to determine the relative effect of an important per-

sonality characteristic (i.e., employees motivation for achievement) on struc-
tural empowerment, which may be more closely related to empowerment
than those that have been examined in previous studies. We argue that the
studies that ignore the significance of personal characteristics likely would
have arrived at different conclusions, had they accounted for this important
personality characteristic. Moreover, we challenge their conclusions regarding
the irrelevance of employees personal characteristics to workplace structural
empowerment. Such conclusions are based on their findings of statistically
insignificant, partial regression coefficients, in a single model, that also include
the structural variables. We claim that in order to perform a more valid test of
Kanters proposition, it is best to gauge the mechanisms by which personal and
structural factors influence employees perceived workplace empowerment in
a path-analysis model. This will provide a more accurate reflection of both the
direct and indirect effects of personal factors, relative to structural characteris-
tics. The personal factors may be only indirectly related to workplace empow-
erment through the structural factors, and thus should not be dismissed when
they lose their significant influence in a single model that contains these two
types of determinants simultaneously. Thus before laying the personal char-
acteristics thesis to rest, it is imperative to examine the influence of a more
relevant personal characteristic (i.e., employee motivation) on workplace
structural empowermentin addition to the ones that have been accounted
for thus far (such as age, education and experience). It is also imperative to
examine the (direct and indirect) effects of personal characteristics variables
in a path-analysis model, rather than a single multiple regression model.
It should be noted however, that some studies model the antecedents and
consequences of workplace empowerment in more sophisticated path and
structural equation analysesin order to uncover the direct and indirect
pathways of effects of a variety of factors on employees perceived empower-
ment. Interestingly enough, these studies either do not account for the moti-
vation variable or they treat it as a consequence of structural empowerment
rather than as its antecedent. Gangne et al. (1997), for instance, use path
analysis modelling and demonstrate that job characteristics are predictive
of work place empowerment, which in turn influences employees intrinsic
motivation. Laschinger et al. (1999), analyze a model in which staff mem-
bers perceptions of leader behaviour is designated as an antecedent of for-
mal and informal powerwithout accounting for employees motivational
characteristics. Laschinger et al. (2001) test another expanded, more speci-
fied, model of Kanters theory, in which the psychological empowerment of
employees (as defined by Velthouse) is included as a by-product of structural
empowermentand as a mediating factor between structural empowerment
 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 547

and organizational outcomes. This research fails to examine the impact of

the personal factors on structural empowerment; instead, personal motiva-
tion is modelled as a consequence of structural empowerment, rather than its
determinant. Greaco et al. (2006) examine the moderating effects of empow-
erment on employees burn-out, through leader empowering behaviour in a
structural analysiswithout accounting for the employees personal charac-
teristics. In yet another study, with a title that gives the impression that it tests
the relative role of structure versus motivation for workplace empowerment,
Yoon (2001) also treats motivation as a consequence of structural empower-
ment, and as a determinant of empowerment outcomes. Thus, existing stud-
ies that include the motivational aspect of psychological empowerment in
their structural empowerment models have designated employee motivation
as a consequence of structural empowerment, rather than as its determinant
(Gagne et al. 1997; Laschinger et al. 2001; Yoon 2002). More recent studies also
treat employee motivation as an outcome of a combination of factors: empow-
ering structural factors, leadership behaviour, and psychological empower-
ment (Zhang and Partol 2010).
It is clear then that extant research does not examine the impact of employ-
ees motivation for achievement on their perceived workplace empowerment.
We maintain that studies that test Kanters theory endure these major short-
comings: first, contrary to their claims, they do not accurately test the validity
of Kanters theory. This is because they prematurely conclude that the personal
factors are not significant vis--vis perceived structural workplace empower-
ment based on direct partial coefficients in single regression models, which
include both structural and personal characteristics simultaneously. Second,
they fail to examine the relative impact of a significant aspect of personal
characteristics (employees motivation towards achievement), separate from
other personal characteristics such as age, gender, education and experience.
Finally, studies that do examine path and structural models, treat employee
motivation as a consequence of structural empowerment rather than as its
determinant.
We argue that employees motivation may also play an important role in
determining their perceived structural empowerment, even if only indirectly.
Therefore, the main purpose of this research is to fill this gap in the literature,
by examining the extent to which employees motivationalong with their
gender, educational qualifications, and work experienceinfluences their per-
ceived empowerment, both directly and indirectly. Influence of motivation on
empowerment will be examined through employees occupational positions
and other occupational structures. This includes their access to structural lines
of formal and informal power, which has been shown by previous research to
be the most important structural determinant of empowerment.
548 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560

The empirical research is conducted in Palestinian hospitals (Saadeh 1999),

which provides a different setting than the Canadian or American contexts
that traditionally have been investigated, thus adding to the studys novelty.

2.Kanters Theory
Kanter (1977, 1993) asserts that the position one occupies in the workplace
and the structural power relations that arise in an organization shape work
attitudes, behaviours and the level of empowerment one enjoys. For Kanter,
empowerment is not a psychological predisposition or control over others,
rather it is the ability to get things done, to mobilize resources, to get and
use whatever it is that a person needs for the goals he or she is attempting
to meet (Kanter 1977: 166). A person is thus empowered when (s)he has the
ability to access and mobilize resources, information, support, and opportuni-
ties that catalyse goal achievement, or serve as tools for action. In Kanters
words: The powerful are the ones who have access to tools for action (166).
Effective management skills and high morale of workers do not depend on the
managers human relations but on the amount of outward and upward power
managers have in the system. The ability to access these toolsor empower-
ment structuresfor action is influenced by organizational structures such as
access to formal and informal lines of power in the organization, not the per-
sonal predispositions of employees. A job that offers employees access to for-
mal and informal lines of powersuch as visibility, centrality to the purpose
of the organization, access to decision-making processes, and networks and/or
alliances with peers and superiorsaffords them greater empowerment, irre-
spective of their personal experience, qualifications, and traits. In this study,
we test Kanters proposition regarding the determinants of structural empow-
erment, intending to answer the following questions: Are the structural power
variables (i.e., access to formal and informal lines of power and work position) or
the personality variables more relevant to perceived structural workplace empow-
erment? If both are relevant, then what are the mechanisms by which their effects
are exerted? We employ Kanters definitions of workplace empowerment, and
of access to formal and informal lines of power.

3.1.Methods

3.1.1The Sample
A simple random sample of 181 individuals was selected from a population of
nursing personnel who have held their positions for over one year, in two major
 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 549

Palestinian hospitals: Makassed and Ramallah. Makassed Hospital is a rela-

tively large (254 beds), urban, religious, charitable and non-profit organization
with a staff of 213 nursesexcluding 23 nurses who did not meet the studys
one-year employment requirement. Ramallah Hospital is a smaller (128 beds),
urban, governmental institution with a staff of 93 nursing personalexcluding
the 24 nurses who did not meet the specified employment time limit.
From Makassed Hospital, 35 staff and 35 practical nurses were randomly
selected from the population of 88 and 87 staff and practical nurses, respec-
tively, by means of simple selection with the aid of the random table; while
from Ramallah Hospital, 25 staff and 25 practical nurses were chosen in the
same manner from the population of 38 staff and 32 practical nurses. Because of
the small population size of nurse managers, all of the 38 nurse managers from
Makassed Hospital and the 23 nurse managers from Ramallah hospital were
included in the study sample; hence the sample is only partially randomi.e.,
it is only random vis--vis staff and practical nurses, but comprehensive vis--
vis nurse managers. Out of the 181 nurses who were given the questionnaire,
154 completed and returned it, resulting in a response rate of 84%.
Questionnaires were hand-delivered to each of the selected personnel. To
ensure anonymity, and in turn boost the response rate, the participants were
told to place their completed questionnaires in sealed boxes with slot open-
ings, which were placed in various locations in their respective wards.

3.1.2Design and Model Specification

This study uses a survey design with a self-administered closed-ended ques-
tionnaire to examine employees perceived workplace structural empower-
ment, and its determinants in their natural setting without the manipulation
and control required by experimental designs. The questionnaire includes
instruments that measure perceived workplace structural empowerment, des-
ignated in the study as the dependent variable; perceived access to formal and
informal lines of power and work position as mediating variables; and demo-
graphic and personal variables such as age, educational attainment, years of
work experience, and employees motivation for achievement as independent
(exogenous) variables.

3.1.3Measurement
In this study we use Kanters definition of structural empowerment, which
reflects the employees access to empowering structures such as information,
support, resources, and opportunities that are necessary for work efficacy
(Wilson and Laschinger 1994: 40). Chandlers Conditions of Work Effectiveness
Questionnaire (CWEQ) (1986) was used to measure the employees perception
550 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560

of their access to the four dimensions of empowerment structures specified by

Kanter. All of the measurement instrumentsaccess to information, access
to support, access to resources, access to opportunities, as well as those that
measure perceived access to formal and informal lines of power and attitudes
of motivation for achievementare comprised of five-point Likert scale
responses ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). The mean score for all the
statements in each scale was calculated; these scores represent the participat-
ing individuals value for each variable, ranging from 1 to 5. The other personal
characteristics such as work position, educational attainment, and all demo-
graphic variables were measured with single straightforward questions.

Access to information was measured with an eight-item scale, which cap-

tures the employees knowledge about: the current state of the organization;
the goals and plans of top management for the organization as a whole, and
for their individual units; and how decisions regarding employees salaries and
duties are made.

Access to support was measured using a seven-item scale. Items reflect the
extent to which employees receive rewards and praise on jobs done well; help-
ful comments on jobs that could be improved; advice on problem-solving in
situations of crises; and suggestions regarding job promotion.

Access to resources was measured with a five-item scale reflecting the employ-
ees access to resources, such as essential work equipment and supplies; avail-
ability of sufficient time to complete the job; and influence regarding decisions
to dispense these resources.

Access to opportunities was measured using a five-item scale designed to cap-

ture the employees access to challenging work and tasks that require the use
of all of their skills and knowledge; access to training programs; the chance to
gain new skills and knowledge; and the chance to advance to better positions.

Formal and informal lines of power, which Kanter hypothesizes are the most
important structural determinants of empowerment and which are designated
as intermediate variables in the model specification in this research, were
measured by The Job Activity Scale (JAS) and the Organizational Relation-
ship Scale (ORS) respectively. These scales were developed by Lashinger and
Sabiston (1993). JAS measures perceived access to formal lines of power with
an eight-item scale that addresses the employees access to jobs that offer vis-
ibility; variety in tasks; job flexibility; rewards for innovation; participation in
 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 551

educational programs; participation in problem solving tasks; and the ability

to make prompt decisions with a minimal level of approvals from supervisors.
ORS, which measures the employees perceptions regarding access to informal
lines of power, includes nine items that reflect the extent of employees collabo-
ration with, and recognition from, more senior colleagues; the extent to which
employees get to know auxiliary employees as peers and seek out their ideas;
and the ability of the employees to extend their influence outside their units.

Employees motivation or disposition and need to achieve, defined as the

employees need for satisfaction and achievement through skilled and auton-
omous work (Warr, Cook and Wall 1979, 131), was measured by the Higher
Order Needs Strength Scale designed by Warr, Cook and Wall (1979). This scale
is composed of six items that measure employees desire to comprehensively
use their skills to achieve something that they personally value; to make their
own decisions; to learn new things; to do challenging work; and to extend their
range of abilities.
The reliability and validity of all instruments were established prior to their
use in this study through a pilot study of 32 nurses from another Palestinian
hospital in Jerusalem. The CWEQ questionnaire achieved a Cronbachs alpha
of 0.85, while the JAS and ORS scales achieved Cronbachs alpha values of 0.76
and 0.82, respectively. Three academic experts in the social and health man-
agement sciences at Al-Quds University confirmed the face validity and con-
tent validity of the scales.

3.2.Results

3.2.1Summary Statistics
Summary statistics show that nurses in the two hospitals scored high to mod-
erate levels on their overall perceived workplace structural empowerment
(mean = 2.9) and on its structural determinantssuch as perceived access to
formal (mean = 2.7) and informal (mean = 3.0) lines of power, all on a 5-point
scale. The median score for empowerment is also high (2.9), indicating that
50% of the nurses have a higher empowerment score. These results show that
the study sample comprises a relatively empowered group of employees; these
results are consistent with Canadian and American studies (Lashinger and
Haven, 1996).
The employees also have high motivation (mean = 4.1), with 68% of the par-
ticipants enjoying greater motivation than a high score of 4.0 points. A follow-up
552 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560

study is necessary to explore why so many nurse employees in these two

Palestinian hospitals display such an important on-the-job personality charac-
teristic, and to assess whether this level of motivation for achievement is just as
prevalent among nurses in all Palestinian healthcare institutions.

3.2.2Test of Hypothesis
First, we examine a multiple regression equation of all of the personal charac-
teristics on structural empowerment, and then estimate another model with
all of the structural and personal variables. The results of the first model reveal
significant impacts of the educational qualifications, work experience, and
attitudes of motivation for achievement on perceived workplace empower-
ment among all nurses in the two Palestinian hospitals (see model 1, table 1).
Employee motivation has highly significant unstandardized and standardized
estimators, respectively (B = 0.24, Beta = 0.25, p = 0.008), followed by the effect
of years of experience in nursing (B = 0.025, Beta = 0.24, p = 0.001), and then the
effect of educational attainment (B = 0.15, Beta = 0.21, p = 0.001). These three
personality variables account for a little over 19% of the variance in perceived
workplace empowerment. This supports the hypothesis that personal charac-
teristics do have an influence on the perceived empowerment of employees.
When the employees work position was included in the above equation (as
shown in model 2, table 1), it was found to have the greatest impact on per-
ceived empowerment (B = 0.15, Beta = 0.28, p = 0.017), while the effects of moti-
vation for achievement (B = 0.25, Beta = 0.27, p = 0.001) and work experience
(B = 0.02, Beta = 0.15, p = 0.05) both remained highly significant; however, the
effect of educational attainment disappeared. These results both support and
contradict Kanters theory and the results of previous research. Work position,
as Kanter proposes, impacts perceived empowerment most; but also, contrary
to this proposition, the effects of employees motivation, and years of experi-
ence in the nursing profession, remained strong and significanteven after
controlling for the effects of work position (treated as one of the structural
determinants in this research). This indicates that these personality traits, in
addition to the employees work positions, are also important for the employ-
ees perceived empowerment. Thus, irrespective of ones position (i.e., high
managerial, mid-level managerial, or staff), being highly motivated leads to
higher levels of perceived structural empowerment amongst employees.
Nevertheless as Kanter suggests and as previous studies determined, once
the structural determinants, perceived access to formal power (B = 0.49, Beta =
0.52, p = 0.001) and informal power (B = 0.20, Beta = 0.25, p = 0.001) are included
in the regression model, the effects of all the personal factors, including the
effect of occupation position, become insignificant (see table 1, model 4), these
 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 553

Table 1
Multiple regression of various personal and structural characteristics
on employees perceived workplace empowerment; shown are the un-
standardized (UC), standardized coefficients (SC), and levels of significance (SL),
respectively.
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Gender (UC) -.03 -.03 .03
(SC) -.02 -.02 .02
(SL) .80 .70 .68
Education (UC) .15 .01 .04
(SC) .21 .00 .06
(SL) .001 .997 .523
Experience (UC) .03 .02 .004
(SC) .24 .05 .041
(SL) .001 .05 .515
Motivation (UC) .24 .25 .10
(SC) .25 .27 .11
(SL) .008 .000 .07
Position (UC) .15 .03
(SC) .28 .05
(SL) .017 .554
Formal
Power (UC) .51 .49
(SC) .55 .52
(SL) .000 .000
Informal
Power (UC) .21 .20
(SC) .26 .25
(SL) .000 .001
R-SQ adjusted .19 .22 .56 .57

results are in line with the findings of previous research regarding the dimin-
ishing impact of personal factors on perceived empowermentonce the struc-
tural factors, access to formal and informal power, are included in the analysis.
It is worth noting here that the effect of the personality variable, motivation
for achievement, is close to significance (B = 0.10, Beta = 0.12, p = 0.07) in this
model. This indicates that even when the structural variables are accounted
for, employee motivation nevertheless makes an impact on empowerment.
554 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560

Moreover, similar to the findings of the studies discussed above, access to

(both formal and informal) lines of power is the most powerful predictor and it
explains close to 56% of the variance of perceived structural empowerment.

3.2.3Path Models
In support of the study hypothesiswhich proposes that the personal vari-
ables influence workplace structural empowerment through the structural
factors (see models 1, 2 and 3 of table 2, and figure 1)the results reveal that
work position is determined both by employees educational qualifications
(B = 0.97, Beta = 0.75, p = 0.001), and the number of years of work experience (B =
0.06, Beta = 0.32, p = 0.001), but not by their motivation for achievement
(B = -0.1, Beta = 0.06, p = 0.28) nor by their gender, suggesting a gender equal-
ity in the attainment of ones occupational position. These variables explain a
significant portion (60%) of the variance within the work position.
Furthermore, access to formal lines of power in the organization, as hypoth-
esized, is significantly influenced by the type of work position one occupies
(B = 0.18, Beta = 0.30, p = .007); years of experience (B = 0.02, Beta = 0.21, p =
0.01); and his/her motivation for achievement (B = 0.19, Beta = 0.19, p = 0.01).
What is of particular interest is the fact that employees educational qualifica-
tions do not impact their access to formal lines of power. About 28% of the
variation among employees in their formal power is accounted for by their
position, years of experience, and their personality disposition for motivation.
Note that the personal characteristicswork experience, and more impor-
tantly, motivation for achievementinfluence perceived access to formal
power, even after controlling for the occupational position, thus revealing a
direct relationship between these elements and access to formal power. This
supports the study hypothesis that perceived empowerment is indirectly influ-
enced by some personal factors of the employees, through one or both of its
more proximate determinants, formal and informal power.
Similarly, access to informal power is strongly determined by access to
formal power (B = 0.70, Beta = 0.61, p = 0.001), and surprisingly, out of all the
personal variables, it is significantly influenced only by ones motivation for
achievement (B = 0.18, Beta = 0.15, p = 0.02). These variables account for 48% of
the variance within informal power. The personal variables alone (not includ-
ing formal power), explain about 22% of the variance in access to informal
power.
These models demonstrate that the personal characteristics of the employ-
ees, especially their motivation for achievement, are important direct deter-
minants of the formal and informal lines of power to which employees have
 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 555

Table 2
Multiple regression equations for the variables position, formal and informal
power. Shown are unstandardized (UC), standardized coefficients (SC) and
level of significance (SL).
Position Formal power Informal power
Gender (UC) .03 -.09 -.08
(SC) .012 .08 -.04
(SL) .817 .418 .479
Position (UC) .18 .06
(SC) .30 .09
(SL) .007 .341
Education (UC) .97 .07 -.006
(SC) .75 .09 -.007
(SL) .000 .439 .943
Experience (UC) .06 .02 -.01
(SC) .32 .21 -.09
(SL) .000 .01 .173
Motivation (UC) -.1 .19 .18
(SC) -.06 .19 .15
(SL) .29 .01 .02
Formal power (UC) .49
(SC) .52
(SL) .001
R-SQ adjusted .60 .28 .48

Figure 1Path analysis model showing ustandardized and standardized

regression coefficients, significance levels and R2.
556 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560

access (see models 2 and 3 in table 2). These in turn play a significant role
in shaping their perceived structural empowerment (see model 3 of table
1). This means that while ones position is held constant, the more moti-
vated the employee is, the more access to formal and informal lines of power
(s)he will attain, and consequently, the more empowered (s)he will become.
These results further support the studys hypothesis that certain personality
characteristicsin this case the most significant being ones motivation for
achievementare important indirect determinants of perceived workplace
structural empowerment. The influence occurs primarily through its structural
determinants, namely access to formal and informal lines of power, and to a
lesser degree the influence takes place directly. After all, it is not unreason-
able to claim that the employees ability to access formal and informal lines
of power such as visibility, centrality, networks or/and alliances with peers
and superiors, depends significantly on their motivation and determination
to achieve when their position is held constant. Access to formal and informal
power will in turn, as the results demonstrate, afford employees greater (per-
ceived) empowerment.

4.Conclusion and Discussion

Although perceived workplace structural empowerment has been found to
determine many employees behaviours and organizational outcomes includ-
ing motivation, job satisfaction, commitment, creativity, and productivity
(Conger and Kanungo 1988; Kanter 1983; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian 2001;
Lawler, Mohrman and Benson, 2001; OToole and Lawler, 2006; Sarmiento,
Laschinger and Iwasiw 2003; Sprietzer 2007; Spreitzer 1995; Thomas and
Velthouse 1990; Zhang and Partol 2010; Greco, Laschinger and Wong 2006; Yoon
2001), it is also crucial to identify the factors that determine empowerment
itself. We argue that it is equally important for those organizations that adopt
the notion of empowerment to identify the preconditions needed for a suc-
cessful implementation of empowermentin order to maximize their orga-
nizational outcomes. In this study we have tested various multivariate models
and path models that assess how empowerment is influenced by personal and
structural factors. The novelty of this study is the examination of the effects
of a particular personality characteristic that has not been dealt with before
as a determinant of structural empowermenti.e., employees motivation
for achievement. We hypothesized that this personality characteristicalong
with other personality characteristics such as education, gender, and work
experienceinfluences empowerment indirectly through the more proximate
 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 557

structural determinants, such as the type of position employees hold, as well

as their access to formal and informal lines of power. Access to lines of power
has been shown in previous studies, as well as this one, to account for close to
60% of the variance in perceived workplace empowerment.
The results support the study hypothesis that employees perceived empow-
erment is indirectly related to their personal qualifications and personality
characteristics. The effects of the personality characteristics and qualifications
on perceived empowerment were indeed found to be expressed through the
type of position the employees occupy and through the power they wield. It
was demonstrated that the employees educational qualifications, and their
work experience, account for a significant portion of the variations in the posi-
tions they occupy (60%). In turn, these factorsalong with work position and
motivation for achievementexplain 30% and 22% of the variations in formal
and informal power, respectively. Consequently, access to formal and infor-
mal lines of power cumulatively account for 57% of the variations in perceived
empowerment.
It is thus reasonable to conclude that work position is dependent on employ-
ees educational levels and experiencesbut not dependent on their motivation
for achievement. However, after securing a position, ones ability to gain access
to informal and formal lines of power is significantly dependent on ones moti-
vation for achievementirrespective of the position they occupy. This implies
that individuals in the same position can access greater formal and informal
lines of power if they are more motivated and predisposed for achievement,
which constitutes an important finding in this study. Thus, since the attainment
of formal and informal power significantly depend on the individuals motiva-
tion for achievementwhich are, in turn, major determinants of perceived
empowermentit follows that ones motivation for achievement is an essential
determinant for access to empowerment structures. While the structural factors
are indeed of greater significance for perceived workplace empowerment, this
should not preclude the significance of personality variables. For as was demon-
strated by the empirical evidence, personality variables are important determi-
nants of these more proximate structural determinants of empowerment.
Employees who are more empowered are those who occupy higher super-
visory positions to begin with. Ones qualifications and work experience pri-
marily determine these positions. However once in these positions, access to
formal and informal lines of power isat least partiallydetermined by the
employees personality traits. Based on these results, analysts are advised not
to underestimate the importance of personal factors in determining employee
empowerment. Managers and supervisors should be keen on the idea that per-
sonal factors (in addition to structural factors) have a role to play in the chain
558 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560

of events leading to empowerment. Accepting the interconnections between

personal and structural factors may determine employees efficacywhich
is undoubtedly invaluable to managers, supervisors, and the overall develop-
ment of organizations.
It is equally important to raise the question of the relevance of perceived
work empowerment in boosting employees motivation for achievement. It
is logical to assume that employees who feel more empowered will inevita-
bly feel more motivated to achieve. There is no doubt that this relationship
exists in work settings; indeed, previous researchers have shown this con-
nection (Gangne et al. 1997; Laschinger et al. 2001; Yoon 2001). What has not
been examined previously however, is the reverse pathwayi.e. the effects of
achievement motivation on structural empowerment. It is precisely this rela-
tionship that this study has sought to assess.

References
Appelbaum, S. and Hare, A. 1996. Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of Goal Setting and Performance:
Some Human Resource Application. Journal of Managerial Psychology 11: 33-47.
Appelbaum, S. and Honeggar, K. 1998. Empowerment: a Contrasting Overview of Organizations
in General and Nursing in Particularan Examination of Organizational Factors, Managerial
Behaviors, Job Design, and Structural Power. Empowerment in Organizations 6: 29-50.
Baguley, K. 1997. Workplace Empowerment, Job Strain, and Affective Organizational commit-
ment in Critical care Nurses: Testing Kanters Structural Theory of Organizational Behavior.
Master thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
Beauliea, R., Shamain J., Donner G. and Pringle D. 1997. Empowerment and Commitment of
Nurse in Long Term Care. Nursing Economy, 15, 32-41.
Blau, J. and Alba, R. 1982. Empowering Nets of Participation. Administrative Science Quarterly 27:
363-379.
Chandler G. 1986. The Relationship of Nursing Work Environment to Empowerment and Power-
lessness. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Choi, J. 2006. A Motivational Theory of Charismatic Leadership: Envisioning, Empathy and
Empowerment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 13: 24-43.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. 1988. The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice.
Academy of Management Review 13: 471-482.
Finegan, J. and Laschinger H. 2001. The Antecedents and Consequence of Empowerment: Agenda
Analysis. Journal of Nursing Administration 31: 489-97.
Gagne, M., Senecal, C.B. and Koestner, R. 1997. Proximal Job Characteristics, Feelings of Empow-
erment, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Multidimensional Model. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology 27: 1222-1240.
Goddard, M. and Laschinger, H. 1997. Nurse Managers Perception of Power and Opportunity.
Canadian Journal of Nursing Administration 10: 40-66.
Greco, P., Laschinger, H. and Wong, C. 2006. Leader Empowering Behaviours, Staff Nurse
Empowerment and Work Engagement/Burnout. Nursing Research 19: 41-56.
Hatcher, S. and Laschinger H. 1996. Staff Nurses Perceptions of Power and Opportunity and
Level of Burnout: A Test of Kanters Structural Theory of Organizational Behavior. Canadian
Journal of Nursing Administration 19: 74-94.
 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560 559

Haugh, E. and Laschinger, H. 1996. Power and Opportunity in Public Health Nursing. Public
Health Nursing 13: 42-49.
Johnson, C. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975. Stan-
ford: Stanford University Press.
Kanter, R. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
. 1993. Men and Women of the Corporation. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.
Kutzscher, L. 1994. Staff Nurses Perceptions of Power and Degree of Participative Management:
A Test of Kanters Structural Theory of Power. Master Thesis, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario.
Laschinger, H., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. 2001. Impact of Structural and Psychological
Factors on Job Strain in Nursing Work Setting: Expanding Kanters Model. Journal of Nursing
Administration 31: 233-43.
Laschinger, H., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Casier, S. 2000. Organizational Trust and Empower-
ment in Restructured Health Care Settings: Effects on Staff Nurse Commitment. Journal of
Nursing Administration 30: 413-425.
Laschinger, H., Wong, C., McMahon, L. and Kaufmann, C. 1999. Leader Behavior Impact on Staff
Nurse Empowerment, Job Tension and Work Effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration
29: 28-39.
Laschinger, H. and Wong, C. 1999. Staff Nurse Empowerment and Collective Accountability: Effect
on Perceived Productivity and Self-rated Work Effectiveness. Nursing Economics 17: 308-316.
Laschinger, H., Wong, C., McMahon, L. and Kaufmann, C. 1999. Leader Behavior Impact on Staff
Nurse Empowerment, Job Tension and Work Effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration
29: 28-39.
Laschinger H., Sabiston J. and Kutszher L. 1997. Empowerment and Staff Nurses Decision Involve-
ment in Nursing Work Environments: Testing Kanters Theory of Structural Power in Organiza-
tions. Research in Nursing and Health 20: 341-352.
Laschinger, H. and Havens D. 1996. Staff Nurse Empowerment and Perceived Control Over Nurs-
ing Practice, Conditions for Work Effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration 26: 27-35.
Laschinger, H. 1996. A Theoretical Approach to Studying Work Empowerment in Nursing: A
Review of Studies Testing Kanters Theory of Structural Power in Organizations. Nursing
Administrative Quarterly 20: 25-41.
Laschinger, H. and Shamian, J. 1994. Staff Nurses and Nurse Managers Perception of Job-related
Empowerment and Managerial Self-efficacy. Journal of Nursing Administration 24: 38-47.
Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., and Benson, G. 2001. Organizing for high performance: Employee
Involvement, TQM, Reengineering, and Knowledge Management in the Fortune 1000. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
McBurney, M. 1997. The Relationship between First-line Nurse Managers Perceptions of Job-
related Empowerment and Occupational Stress in Large Acute Care Teaching Hospital.
Master Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
McDermott, K., Laschinger, H. and Shamain, J. 1996. Work Empowerment and Organizational
Commitment. Nurse Management 27: 44-48.
Miller, P., Godant, P. and Laschinger, H. 2001. Evaluation of Physical Therapists Structural Power
in Organizations. Physical Therapy 81: 180-8.
OBrien, L. 1997. The Relationship between Registered Nurses Perceptions of Job-Related
Empowerment and Occupational Mental Health: A test of Kanters Theory of Organizational
Behavior. Master thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
OToole, J. and Lawler, E.E. 2006. The new American workplace. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Pfeffer, J. 1996. Competitive Advantage through People. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Pfeffer, J., Cialdini, R. B., Hanna, B., and Knopoff, K. 1998. Faith in Supervision and the Self-
Enhancement Bias: Two Psychological Reasons Why Managers Dont Empower Workers. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology 20: 313-321.
 560 R. Nasser, B. A. Saadeh / PGDT 12 (2013) 543-560

Pitts, D. 2005. Leadership, Empowerment, and Public Organizations. Review of Public Personnel
Administration 25: 5-28.
Rapport, J. 1984. Studies in Empowerment: Introduction to the Issue. Prevention in Human
Services 3: 1-7.
Saadeh, B. 1999. The Effect of Workplace Empowerment on Palestinian Nurses Occupational
Stress and Work Effectiveness. Unpublished masters thesis, Jerusalem, Palestine: Al-Quds
University.
Sabiston, J. and Laschinger, H. 1995. Staff Nurse Work Empowerment and Perceived Autonomy.
Journal of Nursing Administration 25: 42-50.
Sagaria, M. 1980. Men and Women Senior Academic Administrators: A Study of Selected Factors
Contributing to Perceived Power of Individuals in Colleges and Universities. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Pennsylvania State University.
Sarmiento, T.P. Laschinger, H. and Iwasiw C. 2004. Nurse Educators Workplace Empowerment,
Burnout, and Job Satisfaction: Testing Kanters Theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing 46(2),
134-143.
Spreitzer, G. 1995. Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement,
and Validation. Academy of Management Journal 38: 1442-1462.
. 2007. Taking Stocks: A Review of more than Twenty Years of Research on Empowerment.
The Handbook of Organizational Behavior.
Thomas, K. and Velthouse, B. 1990. Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An Interpretive Model
of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy Management Review 15: 666-681.
Thorlakson, A. and Murray, R. 1996. An Empirical Study of Empowerment in the Workplace.
Group and Organization Management 11: 11-16.
Tjosvold, D., Chun, H. and Kenneth, S. 1998. Empowerment on the Manager-Employee Relation-
ship in Hong Kong: Interdependence and Controversy. The Journal of Social Psychology 138:
624-637.
Wilson, B. and Laschinger, H. 1994. Staff Nurse Perception of Job Empowerment and Organiza-
tional Commitment: a Test of Kanters Theory of Structural Power in Organizations. Journal of
Nursing Administration 24: 39-47.
Yoon, J. 2001. The Role of Structure and Motivation for Workplace Empowerment: the Case of
Korean Employees. Social Psychology Quarterly 64: 195-206.
Zhang, X. and Partol, K. 2010. Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: the
Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engage-
ment. Academy of Management Journal 53: 107-128.
Zimmerman, M.A. 1995. Psychology Empowerment: Issues and Illustrations. American Journal
of Community Psychology 23: 581-600.
. 1990. Taking Aim on Empowerment Research: On the Distinction between Psychological
and Individual Conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology 18: 169-177.

View publication stats