Supervisory Empowerment Behaviors, Psychological Empowerment and Work Outcomes among Egyptian Managers and Professionals: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: This research examined the relationship of perceived supervisor empowerment behaviors with important work and well-being outcomes in a sample of Egyptian managers and professionals. Relatively little research has been undertaken on human resource management in Egyptian organizations and even less during and following the Arab spring. Methodology: Data were collected from 121 managerial and professional employees using anonymously completed questionnaires. Respondents were relatively young, had university educations, had short job and organizational tenures, and held lower level -management jobs. All measures used here had been used and validated previously by other researchers. Findings: Work outcomes included job satisfaction, organizational commitment, work engagement, exhibiting voice behaviors, workplace learning opportunities, psychological well-being and intent to quit. Employee perceptions of supervisory empowering behaviors predicted their levels of psychological empowerment. And both perceived levels of supervisory/leader empowerment behaviors and self-reported feelings of empowerment had significant relationships with the majority of work and well-being outcomes Value Added: Relatively little research has been undertaken on human resource management in Egyptian organizations and even less during and following the Arab spring. This will add to the body of knowledge about Egyptian managers and other Arab regions. Recommendations: Practical implications of these findings along with future research directions are offered. Practical applications include training supervisors on empowerment behaviors, and training all employees on the benefits of personal empowerment and efficacy and ways to increase them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".