Employees’ psychological empowerment and performance: how customer feedback substitutes for leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Relying on the theories of substitutes for leadership and psychological empowerment, this study aims to explore how perceptions of customer positive feedback can substitute for managers’ transformational leadership in driving frontline employees’ psychological empowerment and, in turn, task performance. Design/methodology/approach The authors tested the research hypotheses with frontline employees working in 17 equipment rental stores. Employees completed a questionnaire about customer positive feedback, transformational leadership and psychological empowerment, and supervisors completed a separate questionnaire about employees’ task performance. A total of 178 employee-supervisor dyads formed the final sample of the study. Findings The results provided support for our hypotheses. Psychological empowerment fully mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and task performance. Moreover, customer positive feedback moderated the indirect relationship between transformational leadership and task performance such that it was significant and positive only when customer feedback was low. Originality/value This paper contributes to the service marketing literature by showing that customer positive feedback can substitute for managers’ leadership in helping frontline employees feeling more in control of their work and psychologically empowered. Another useful contribution for practitioners is that customers may have a positive impact on frontline employees’ motivation state, which past research has little explored.
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".