The Impact of Employee Empowerment on Job Engagement: Evidence from Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of employee empowerment (i.e., structural and psychological empowerment) on job engagement (i.e., physical, emotional, and cognitive engagement). A quantitative approach was adopted in order to achieve such a study aim, and the data was collected via an online questionnaire. The sample of this study consisted of 300 employees from the Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority (ASEZA), one of the biggest Jordanian organisations in Aqaba, with a total of 293 questionnaires retrieved and 7 excluded due to their being invalid for statistical analysis. This yielded a total of 286 accepted questionnaires, or 95.3% of the total questionnaires provided. Moreover, the Statistical Analysis Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used for data analysis, the results of which indicating that the level of implementation of employee empowerment dimensions had a medium rate amongst ASEZA’s employees, as the structural empowerment was applied more than the psychological empowerment. Furthermore, the level of present job engagement dimensions also had a medium rate amongst the surveyed ASEZA employees. The results also indicated there to be a significant statistical impact by structural and psychological empowerment on physical engagement and cognitive engagement, whilst there was no significant statistical impact made by structural empowerment on emotional engagement compared to psychological empowerment, which had a significant statistical impact on it. In light of the findings of this research, ASEZA managers must pay more attention to the role of empowerment of employees in promoting work engagement, since this enhances the organisation’s ability to achieve the appropriate strategy and gain a comparative advantage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".