Moderation Effects of Power Distance on the Relationship Between Types of Empowerment and Employee Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research concludes that empowerment is ineffective with employees from societies high in power distance. The present study examines this conclusion across three types of empowerment: discretion empowerment, psychological empowerment, and leadership empowerment (or empowerment leadership behaviors). To assess the effects of power distance on these three types of empowerment, employee surveys were conducted in Canada (a society low in power distance) and in China (a society high in power distance). Results showed that the effect of discretion empowerment on employee satisfaction was less pronounced in China, just as previous literature had concluded about the dynamics of societies high in power distance. However, the effect of the leadership empowerment on employee satisfaction via the competence facet of psychological empowerment was found to be more pronounced in Canada, a society lower in power distance. These conclusions at the cultural level were also confirmed at the psychological level. We thus advocate that empowerment remains an advantageous strategy to organizations in both societies and individuals high and low in power distance, depending on the type of empowerment involved.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".