How do empowering conditions lead to empowered behaviours? Test of a mediation model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Behavioural outcomes of empowerment are not often studied comprehensively and in a specific manner in the literature. The purpose of this paper is to test a research model that specifies how two empowering conditions (empowering leadership and job autonomy) influence specific behavioural outcomes expected from empowered subordinates (discretionary-empowered behaviours and participation in decision making). A mediated model through psychological empowerment is hypothesised. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional questionnaire study relying on 141 dyads of subordinates-supervisors was conducted. Subordinates provided information on psychological empowerment and empowering leadership, while supervisors assessed job autonomy and behavioural outcomes. Findings Structural equation modelling analyses lent partial support to the hypothesised model. Psychological empowerment completely mediated the relationships between empowering leadership and behavioural outcomes. However, psychological empowerment was a partial mediator of the relationships between job autonomy and behavioural outcomes. A strong direct link was found between job autonomy and participation in decision making. Originality/value This study enables to extend the empowerment literature by showing how job design and leadership factors contribute to boost two types of specific empowered behaviours. The contribution is particularly original in the case of subordinates’ participation in decision making that is not often considered as a subordinate’s empowered behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".