Enhancing nurses' empowerment: the role of supervisors' empowering management practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study tests a theoretical model where: (a) nurses' dispositional resistance to change is indirectly negatively related to behavioural empowerment through the mediating role of psychological empowerment; and (b) supervisors' empowering management practices buffer both the negative relationship between dispositional resistance to change and psychological empowerment and the indirect negative relationship between resistance to change and behavioural empowerment via psychological empowerment. BACKGROUND: Promoting a high level of empowerment among nursing personnel is important to ensure their effectiveness in the context of organizational change. It is thus essential to advance our current understanding of the factors that hamper nurses' psychological and behavioural expressions of empowerment and to clarify supervisor practices that can overcome such barriers. DESIGN: A cross-sectional research design. METHOD: We collected survey data during 2012 from a sample of 197 nurses from a Canadian hospital undergoing a major organizational change. RESULTS: Results from moderated mediation analyses provided evidence for an indirect negative relationship between dispositional resistance to change and behavioural empowerment through psychological empowerment, and for a moderating (buffering) effect of supervisors' empowering management practices on this mediated relationship. These findings provided support for our hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: Supervisors' empowering management practices represent an important contextual buffer against the negative effects of dispositional resistance to change on nurses' empowerment. Organizations should develop empowering management skills among nurses' supervisors to counteract the detrimental effects of dispositional resistance to change and to sustain an empowered nursing workforce.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".