Running head: organizational culture and psychological empowerment
1
Influence of Organizational Culture on Psychological Empowerment of
Academicians in Research Universities
Sahar Ahadi, sahar_ahadi1@yahoo.com
Turiman Suandi, tj@putra.upm.edu.my
Maimunah Ismail (corresponding author), mismail@educ.upm.edu.my
Zoharah Omar, zoharah@educ.upm.edu.my
Universiti Putra Malaysia
ABSTRACT
Background and Purpose: Psychological empowerment of refers to dimensions of autonomy,
professional growth, status, self-efficacy, impact and decision making of the academicians in a
university. Organizational culture can be a powerful influence on the psychological
empowerment because it describes the link between contextual factors and employees’ work
behaviors. A question arises: Which type of culture is needed in a university that helps
academicians to feel empowered? This study aimed to examine the relationship between
organizational culture and psychological empowerment of academicians in research universities
in Malaysia.
Methods: The respondents of the study were academicians from four research universities in
Malaysia. The study used a cluster random sampling technique. Ratios of academicians in each
university were considered for distributing the questionnaires. A total of 135 completed
questionnaires were obtained out of 400 distributed. The study utilized Common Methods
Variance bias (of AMOS) for factor analysis. A step-wise regression analysis was performed to
predict the influence of organizational culture on the psychological empowerment dimensions.
Results and conclusion: Results of the study revealed organizational culture associated with
psychological empowerment and its dimensions. The dominant culture in research universities
was hierarchy culture, while the strongest predictor of psychological empowerment was clan
culture. Implications for human resource development in higher education particularly the
research universities were put forth.
Keywords: psychological empowerment, organizational culture, research universities.
Introduction
Pressure, change and uncertainty are some of challenges that higher education faces these days
(Bartell, 2003; Machado & Taylor, 2010). Increasing pressures from governments and global
markets change the roles and work style of its academicians and scholars (Altbach, 2004;
Douglass, 2005; Gordon & Whitchurch, 2007; McInnis, 2000; Wood, 2005). These challenges
are not only related to structure and systems but also to the development of academic staff.
Universities increasingly need to compete globally with other knowledge providers for
highly qualified staff with new and different skills in research and teaching activity. Teaching,
scholarship, research, consultancy, community service and administration are the major tasks of
academicians in universities in the globalization era. Making academicians’ career more
attractive requires enough consideration on their empowerment (Meyer, 2005; Short & Greer,
1997; Strazzeri, 2005; Thorndyke, Gusic, George, Quillen, & Milner, 2006).
Employee empowerment is one of the most successful ways to improve employee
motivation, organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and a great deal of effort has been
expended to explore empowerment in organizations (Henkin & Marchiori, 2003; Laschinger,
Finegan, & Wilk, 2009; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; Wang & Lee, 2009). Empowerment
develops professional growth in abilities and skills, self-efficacy and performance and decreases
turnover of employers (Biron & Bamberger, 2010; Greasley, Bryman, Dainty, Price, Naismith, &
Soetanto 2008; Logan & Ganster, 2007; Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004; Yang & Choi, 2009).
But implementing empowerment in workplace requires certain antecedents (Asmawi & Mohan,
2010; 2004; Ghani, Raja Hussin, & Jussef, 2009; Luby, 2006). Related research suggested that
organizational culture facilitates empowerment (Hawks, 1999; Johnson, 2009). Organizational
culture has seen as a basic element of decision making for employees’ performance in their tasks.
Countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States
provide strategies and conditions that reduce the uncertainty and maximize the performance and
empowerment of academic staff (Gordon & Whitchurch, 2007; Henkin & Marchiori, 2003).
Malaysia has recently reformed its higher education system resulting in the emergence of four
2
research universities in 2006. The higher education systems face more global challenges than
before. Therefore, governmental and institutional management are responsible to develop
strategic plans for academicians to improve higher education performance, one of which is their
psychological empowerment. But empowerment strategies in higher education are still at its
infancy stage in Malaysia (Ghani, Raja Hussin & Jusoff, 2009).
The literature shows a lack of study about the relationship between organizational culture
and psychological empowerment among academicians in universities. Universities’ leadership
should identify the dominant type of organizational culture and take actions to balance the
organizational culture which is suitable for increasing the level of psychological empowerment.
Since most of the studies on empowerment especially in the relation with organizational culture
have been carried out in western contexts, and the findings could not be generalized in Malaysia
due to different socio cultural contexts, this study attempts to examine the relation between
organizational culture and psychological empowerment in Malaysian higher education.
This paper is organized as follows: After this introductory section, a literature review on
psychological empowerment and organizational culture is given, followed by the study methods that
include sampling, instrumentation and reliability. It then presents results of the descriptive and regression
analyses. The paper ends with conclusions, discussion of the research findings, recommendations for
HRD theory and practice as well as for future research.
Conceptual Framework
The competing values model (Figure 1), is a multidimensional framework to assess
organizational
culture
and
psychological
empowerment
dimensions.
The
theoretical
underpinnings of psychological empowerment and organizational culture for this study are based
3
on conceptualization of Short and Rinehart (1992), who introduced psychological empowerment
in education and competing value framework theory by Cameron and Quinn, (2006).
Spreitzer (1995) used the intrapersonal concept of empowerment for workplace as
described by Thomas and Velthouse (1990). This psychological perspective of empowerment
focuses on the perception of employee on empowerment. Spreitzer (1995) defined psychological
empowerment as an intrinsic task motivation that manifests itself in cognitions reflecting an
individual's orientation to his or her work roles. Intrinsic task motivation is positively valued
experience that an individual derives directly from a task that produces motivation and
satisfaction.
Psychological empowerment entails four cognitions namely, impact, competence,
decision making and meaning. However, as the context of educational workplace differs from
business, Short and Reinhart (1992) introduces psychological empowerment in educational
settings that is dependent on six dimensions. The dimensions are autonomy, professional growth,
status, self-efficacy, impact, and decision making (Wan, 2005; Short & Johnson, 1994). This
study uses these dimensions of psychological empowerment.
Autonomy refers to academicians’ beliefs that they can control certain aspects of their
work life (Short & Johnson, 1994; Womack & Loyd, 2004). Professional growth refers to the
degree of opportunities that university and departments provide for academicians to grow and
develop professionally, to learn continuously and develop certain skills for teaching and
research. Status of academicians is often determined by their effectiveness in the classroom and
research (Short & Johnson, 1994). Self-efficacy refers to the perception of self-knowledge and
belief that academicians are personally competent and has mastered skills necessary to affect
desired outcomes while impact refers to when academicians feel they have an influence on their
4
work place (Womack & Loyd, 2004). Decision-making process in educational context involves
collaborative communication, problem solving sessions, and goal setting.
Organizational culture is a predictor of several workplace behaviors, effectiveness and
job performance. The competing values framework (CVF) conceptualizes the differences
between organizational cultures along two dimensions: structure and focus. The structure
dimension ranges from flexibility at one extreme to control at the opposite extreme. This
dimension captures the difference between organizations that strive for consistent patterns of
behaviors and those organizations that attempt to allow their employees to dictate their own
behaviors. The focus dimension ranges from an external focus to an internal focus. An internal
focus emphasizes factors internal to the organization, such as employee satisfaction, while an
external focus emphasizes the organization's ability to function well in its environment (Cameron
& Quinn, 2006; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Thus different types of culture exist in
organizations. Based on competing values framework (CVF), organizations can have the clan,
adhocracy, market, and hierarchy culture (see Figure 1).
5
Clan
Glue: loyalty, commitment
Leadership: mentor, facilitator, team
builder
Theory
of
effectiveness:
Human
development and participation produce
effectiveness
Adhocracy
Glue: innovation, development
Leadership: innovator, entrepreneur,
visionary
Theory of effectiveness: innovativeness,
vision, and new resources produce
effectiveness
Hierarchy
Glue: formal procedures
Leadership:
coordinator,
monitor,
organizer
Theory of effectiveness: control and
efficiency with capable processes produce
effectiveness
Market
Glue: goal achievement
Leadership: hard driver, competitor, and
producer
Theory of effectiveness: aggressively
competing and customer focus produce
effectiveness
External long-term
Internal short-term smooth
Flexibility
Control
Figure 1. The Competing Values Framework
Source: Cameron and Quinn (2006, p. 46).
Clan emphasizes shared values and goals, participation, and a sense of family. Adhocracy
emphasized entrepreneurship, creativity, and adaptability, while hierarchy refers to many rules
and regulations, clear lines of authority, and its concern with efficiency (Cameron & Ettington,
1988; Fralinger, 2007; Johnson, 2009). Market emphasizes competition, environmental
interaction and customer orientation.
The conceptual framework of this study explains that how each type of organizational
culture has an influence on psychological empowerment. Different types of organizational
cultures have different impacts on psychological empowerment. This means that certain type of
organizational culture could facilitate academicians’ empowerment, while other types of culture
could not. In other words, while
culture which emphasizes creativity, adaptability and
6
participation increases the lecturers’ psychological empowerment, but culture which stresses on
adherence to many rules, regulations and clear lines of authority may decrease their
empowerment. Psychological empowerment of academicians has been suggested to be
influenced by the organizational culture (Spreitzer, 1995; Johnson, 2009).
The connection between culture in organization and psychological empowerment built on
the body of research describing the relationship between the aspects of contextual factors and
employees’ work behaviors (Spreitzer, 1996). Organizational culture can be a powerful influence
on cognitions of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995, 2006). But a question arises: Which type of
culture is needed in universities that help academicians to feel empowered? This study therefore
looks at organizational culture as one of the determinants to the academicians’ psychological
empowerment. Figure 2 portrays the conceptual framework of this study.
Organizational Culture
Clan
Adhocracy
Psychological Empowerment
Autonomy
Professional Growth
Status
Market
Self-efficacy
Impact
Hierarchy
Decision making
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of the Study
7
Literature Review
Psychological Empowerment
Changes and transitions in higher education have the potential to influence the performance of
lecturers. Academicians in universities should be empowered to have the ability to face these
changes. Psychological empowerment may be used as a means to motivate the academicians is in
order to increase their level of performance in teaching and research.
Psychological empowerment includes intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral
empowerment. Several research efforts focused on psychological empowerment in business and
education. Spreitzer’s (1996; 2006) model of psychological empowerment in organizations
describes empowerment as a result of an employees’ perception of her/his personal state or
interpersonal interaction.
Short and Reinhart (1992) defines psychological empowerment in educational settings
consists of six dimensions: autonomy, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, impact and
decision making. Workplace empowerment is a management strategy that has been shown to be
successful in creating positive work environments in educational settings. Conger and Kanungo
(1988) defines psychological empowerment as the process of enhancing the feeling of selfefficacy among the members of an organization. Empowerment helps employees to increase
their innovative behavior and effectiveness. Psychological empowerment is positively related to
creative performance (Wei, Yuan, & Di, 2010).
Cognitive and motivational mechanisms of psychological empowerment explain the
effects of management on work performance (Hall, 2008). Psychological empowerment
influences cognition-based trust and it is a fundamental element in organizational effectiveness
(Ergeneli, Saglam, & Metin, 2007). Higher ratings in dimensions of psychological empowerment
8
are needed to ensure a high level of empowerment (Brancato, 2006; Ghani, Raja Hussin, &
Jussef, 2009; Hancer & George, 2003; Lee & Koh, 2001).
Organizational Culture
According to Hofstede (2001), organizational culture is the collective programming of
the mind that distinguishes the members of one organization from another. Schein (2004) defines
organizational culture as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that is learnt by the organization
as it solves its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well
enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems. Organizational culture shapes
organizations and provides a better understanding of complex organizational components, such
as empowerment (Johnson, 2009; Kim, 2008; Sigler & Pearson, 2000).
Similarly in higher education, organizational culture influences on knowledge
management (Devi, Chong & Lin, 2007). Organizational culture plays an important role in the
successfulness of the change process and primary component of functional decision making in
universities (Franlinger, 2007; Lincoln, 2010). Research indicates that specific organizational
culture is linked with higher education service quality and job satisfaction (Tierney, 2008;
Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009)
Within organizations, including universities, culture defines appropriate behavior,
connecting and motivating individuals, while managing the way of information process within
institutions, shaping their internal relations and even values. Academicians, administrators,
trustees’ beliefs shape the organizational culture in higher education (ASHE, 2003). The
university culture is full of complexity as the beliefs and practices of trustees, senior
9
administrators, faculty members, campus community members, competitors, and society
combine to shape the effectiveness of that university.
Four different types of culture namely clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy in
university may have different influences on academic staff workplace behaviors (Cameron &
Quinn, 2006; Fralinger, 2007; Fralinger, Olson, Pinto-Zipp & DiCorcia, 2010; Gregory, Harris,
Armenakis & Shook, 2009; Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009). Based on competing values
framework the clan culture represents a family-type organization (Johnson, 2009, Cameron &
Quinn, 2006). It emphasizes teamwork and employee development, as customers are considered
partners. This form of organization promotes a human work environment, with the managerial
goal of empowering employees by gaining their participation, commitment, and loyalty. Leaders
are considered mentors or parent figures, as loyalty, tradition, and commitment are emphasized.
Through teamwork, participation, and consensus, a successful internal climate with a concern for
people can be achieved (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). Adhocracy is based on the term ad hoc,
which refers to a temporary, specialized, dynamic unit. The goal of these organizations is to be
innovative and adaptive.
The market culture refers to a type of organization functioning as a market itself. The
market operates primarily through monetary exchange, as competitiveness and productivity in
these organizations are dependent on strong external positioning and control, while the hierarchy
culture emphasizes an environment that is relatively stable, where tasks and functions can be
integrated and coordinated, uniformity in products and services can be maintained, and workers
and jobs are under control. In this culture, success is defined by incorporation of decision-makers
of clear authority, standardized rules and procedures, and control and accountability
mechanisms. Individuals follow procedures, and leaders effectively coordinate and organize
10
activity to maintain a smooth-running organization. Stability, predictability, and efficiency
characterize the long-term concerns of this organization (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). This
organizational culture is situational oriented.
Malaysian studies on organizational culture in higher education show that cultural values
in universities will enhance innovation and to abandon those practices that hinder creativity and
innovativeness and to warrant success in managing knowledge (Altbach, 2007; Asmawi &
Mohan, 2010; Devi, Chong & Lin, 2007; Yiing & Ahmad, 2009). An effective university culture
teaches and exhibits appropriate behavior, motivates individuals, and governs information
processing; these components of culture can shape internal relations and values.
Relationship between Organizational Culture and Psychological Empowerment
Various researchers have looked into the process of empowerment and concluded a
number of conditions that are essential to the implementation of academicians’ empowerment.
The research in higher education on psychological empowerment focused on organizational
workplace outcomes behaviors but very little on academicians’ culture. Empowerment in
workplace cannot be without environmental contexts because producing empowerment requires
changing organizational cultures and environments. Organizational environments or climates can
facilitate or inhibit empowerment (Asmawi & Mohan, 2010; Contreras-McGavin, 2004).
Psychological empowerment is more likely to succeed when the appropriate
organizational culture contains (Chiang & Jang, 2008; Johnson, 2009; Samad, 2007, Spreitzer,
1995a). The culture that emphasizes flexibility and autonomy with rewards for participation
would facilitate psychological empowerment. Organizational culture provides an excellent
framework for understanding and assessing the person-environment fit needed for psychological
11
empowerment to succeed within an organization. It considers individual attitudes, employee
behavior, and organizational practices as interconnected elements within organizational life .
Different cultural types have different impacts on psychological empowerment.
Therefore, researchers must consider more on different types of organizational culture in order to
identify the one which may enhance the psychological empowerment of academicians in
universities (Al-Khalifa & Aspinwall, 2001; Cai, 2008; Stock, McFadden, & Gowen 2006;
Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2010).
There is a knowledge gap in terms of the relationships between organizational culture
types and each of the four dimensions of psychological empowerment especially in the context
of higher education. Therefore, this study is an attempt to fill in this knowledge gap, through
which it is expected that it brings academic and practical insights to the working culture in higher
education that emphasizes research and development.
Methodology
Sample
The respondents of the study were academicians from four research universities in Malaysia of
which the universities obtained their research status in 2006. The study used a cluster random
sampling technique. Ratios of academicians in each university were considered for distributing
the questionnaires. A total of 135 completed questionnaires were obtained out of 400 distributed.
The study utilized Common Methods Variance bias (of AMOS) for factor analysis. A step-wise
regression analysis was performed to predict the influence of organizational culture on the
psychological empowerment dimensions.
12
The study questionnaires were sent with a cover letter, followed by a reminder letter in
two weeks after. Prior to data gathering, negotiation were made with the heads of departments in
all four universities for execution of the research. An introductory letter from the head of each
department explained the purpose of the study as well as introduced the researcher to the
prospective respondents. The respondents were given two weeks to complete the questionnaires.
Each questionnaire took approximately 15-20 minutes to be completed.
The academicians were given face-to-face explanations regarding the purpose for their
participation. To encourage better responses, participants did not identify themselves by name or
employee number. The completed questionnaires were picked up after two weeks with reminder
letters were to those with no response.
Measurement and Instruments
The instrument consists of three sections namely, demographic characteristics,
psychological empowerment and organizational culture. Each is explained as follows:
Demographic Characteristics
Demographic characteristics section includes the personal data of respondents of age,
gender, work experience and number of years as faculty member in current department. The data
were analyzed using frequencies and percentages as descriptive measures.
Psychological Empowerment
Psychological empowerment used Faculty Participant Empowerment Scale (FPES) that
measures perception of psychological empowerment within educational setting with six
components (Short & Rinehart, 1992). Autonomy refers to academicians beliefs that they can
control certain aspect of their work life. Professional growth refers to academicians’ perceptions
13
that university provides opportunities for growing and developing as a professional, learn
continuously, and expand one’s skills.
Status refers to the academicians’ sense of esteem ascribed by others to position of
academicians. Self-efficacy refers to academicians’ perceptions that they have the skills and
ability to help students learn, are competent in building effective programs for students, and can
affect change in student learning. Impact refers to academicians’ perceptions that have an effect
and influence on university life. Decision making refers to the participation of academicians in
critical decisions that directly affect their work (Short & Rinehart 1992).
A sample item for the dimension of decision making is “I am given the responsibility to
monitor Programs”. A sample item for the dimension of Professional growth reads “I function in
a professional environment”. A sample for status is” I believe that I have earned respect”. A
sample for self-efficacy is “I believe that I am helping students become independent Learners”.
Samples for autonomy and impact respectively are “I have control over daily schedules” and “I
believe that I have the ability to get tasks done”.
Organizational Culture
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) is used for this study. Six
dimensions of organizational culture are namely, dominant characteristics of organization,
leadership style and approach, management of employees, organizational glue, statistical
emphases, and criteria success (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Cameron & Quinn 2006).
Modification was done to the instrument from ipsative scale to a 24-item of 7-point Likert scale
(ranging from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree).
The dominant characteristics of organization are the organization’s most overt features.
The leadership style and approach refers to recognition and use of power by leader within the
14
organization. Management of employees means the manner in which workers are treated. The
organizational glue refers to the forces or commonalities that bind members of an organization
together. Strategic emphases are motivating factors within an organization. The criteria for
success refer to the intrinsic or extrinsic reward systems. Each of six dimensions contains four
items. Item 1 related to clan culture, item 2 related to adhocracy culture, item 3 related to market
culture and item 4 related to hierarchy culture. Scores of the four culture types were attained by
summing up the six items for each culture type.
In the organizational culture scale, a sample item for the dimension of clan culture reads
“this university is a very personal place. It is like an extended family”. For adhocracy culture is
“The leadership in the university is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship,
innovating or risk taking”. A sample item for market culture is “this university defines success
on the basis of winning in the marketplace and out placing the competition. Competitive market
leadership is the key”. For hierarchy culture, a sample item reads “The glue that holds this
university together is formal rules and policies. Maintain a smooth-running organization is
important”.
Multicollinearity and Common Methods Variance Bias
As all data were from self-report measures, the possibility of common-method bias and
multicollinearity needed to be ascertained. To assess CMV (Common Methods Variance) bias,
all variables were simultaneously factor analyzed by AMOS. In maximum likelihood approach is
used. Chi-square is divided by the degree of freedom to assess model fit. A ratio less than 2.00
would indicate concomitant common method bias. For these data, the ratio was 5.45 indicating
that common-method bias is not problematic in this study. The problem of multicollinearity does
not exist among the independent variables.
15
Results
Table 1 shows mean, standard deviation, and reliability values (Cronbach’s alpha) for all
variables. Most of the scales had reliabilities around 0.8 or higher, and none are below 0.7. Mean
standard deviation and reliabilities were analyzed by using SPSS version 15. The descriptive
analysis of demographic information revealed that the mean age of the academicians was 43
years (SD=8.07). On average, they had 12 years (SD=7.8) of work experience in the current
department. The majority was male (54.8%) and worked full time (80%) (Table2).
Table1: Mean, standard deviation and reliability of measurement variables
Instrument
FPES:
Decision Making
Professional Growth
Status
Self-efficacy
Autonomy
Impact
Total Psychological Empowerment
OCAI:
Clan
Market
Adhocracy
Hierarchy
Total Organizational Culture
Mean
4.38
5.00
5.47
5.46
5.11
5.16
32.64
4.29
4.23
4.21
4.59
17.32
SD
Score
Range
Cronbach’s
Alpha
1.04
0.94
0.60
0.69
0.82
0.69
4.59
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
6-42
.90
.86
.88
.89
.87
.86
.98
1.16
1.03
1.04
0.76
3.58
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
4-28
.87
.82
.81
.72
.94
Table 2: Mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentage of demographic
characteristics of academicians
Frequency Percentage Mean
SD
Gender
Male
74
54.8
Female
61
45.2
Age (years)
43
8.07
26-36
32
23.7
37-46
56
41.5
47-65
47
34.8
Work experience (years)
12
7.83
16
The mean scores of cultural alternatives (A=Clan, B=Adhocracy, C=Market,
D=Hierarchy) presented in Table 1 are illustrated on a four-quadrant plot (Figure 3). Based on
the descriptive analysis the result shows that hierarchy (M=4.59; SD=0.76) is dominant
organizational culture. The hierarchy culture emphasizes stability, control and predictability. The
dominant leadership style in hierarchy culture is that of the coordinator, organizer or director
where rules and policies are the primary bonding mechanism (Smart and John, 1996).
Flexibility and Discretion
A
B
Internal Focus and Integration
External Focus and Differentiation
C
D
Stability and Control
Figure 3: The Organizational Culture Profile Plot
Note: A=Clan; B=Adhocracy; C=Market; D=Hierarchy
17
In order to test the relationship between organizational culture and psychological
empowerment, simple regression was done. The result shows the organizational culture of
academicians had significant and high relationship with psychological empowerment(r=0.734).
The regression analysis of criterion variable of psychological empowerment to the
predictor variable of organizational culture is presented in Table 3. Organizational culture was
statistically significant contributor to psychological empowerment (F=89.511, p < 0.01). The
for organizational culture was 0.40 which indicates that 40.0% of the variability in
academicians’ psychological empowerment was accounted for by organizational culture.
Table 3: Simple regression analysis between organizational culture and psychological
empowerment
df
Variable
Constant
89.51
133
.40
.63**
Organizational culture
*p < .05. **p < .01.
For examining the associations between the organizational culture and empowerment
components while accounting for relationships among the culture types themselves, a stepwise
regression was done. All four types of culture were entered at the same time, and the probability
of F was 0.05 to enter and 0.10 to remove.
The results are presented in Table 4. Clan was the strongest predictor of decision making,
professional growth, status, autonomy and impact, while market was the second strongest
predictor for decision making and professional growth. Only adhocracy culture type had
significant predictive power on self-efficacy and no significant prediction of hierarchy culture
with any of six psychological empowerment components.
18
Table 4: Step-wise regression analysis of organizational culture predicting psychological
empowerment components
Empowerment component Organizational
B
SEB
R2
culture
Decision making
Clan
.66
.12
.45**
.38
.29**
.05
Market
.48
.14
.49**
.43
Professional growth
Clan
.40
.06
.27**
.05
Market
.25
.07
.43**
.18
Status
Clan
.22
.04
.38**
.14
Self-efficacy
Adhocracy
.25
.05
.44**
.18
Autonomy
Clan
.26
.05
.45**
.20
Impact
Clan
.27
.05
Notes: Only predictors with significant beta weights are shown; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
B = Unstandardized reg. coefficient, SEB = Standard error B, = Standardized reg. coefficient.
As displayed in Table 4, decision making dimension can be significantly predicted from
clan (β = .45; p < 0.01) and market culture (β =.29; p < 0.01). For decision making, a total of 44
%t of variance was explained with clan and market cultures. Clan culture was strongest predictor
2
2
of decision making ( R =.38). After clan, market culture predicts decision making ( R =.05).
Academics’ decision making was not positively correlated with neither adhocracy nor hierarchy
culture. The results of regression analysis for the decision making dimension reveal that
academics perceiving clan and market cultures result higher feeling on participation in decision
making in their work place.
Two cultures namely clan (β = .49; p < 0.01) and market (β = .27; p < 0.01) cultures are
significantly predicted professional growth. For professional growth, a total of 47%t of variance
was explained with clan and market cultures. Clan was strongest predictor of professional
growth. ( R =.43). After clan, market culture predicts decision making ( R =.05). There is no
2
2
significant relationship between professional growth and adhocracy and hierarchy culture. These
results show that as the academicians perceive a higher level of clan and market culture, they feel
better professionally. Stepwise regression analysis results show that clan culture (β = .43; p <
19
0.01) was significantly predicted status. A total of 18% of variance was explained with clan
culture. Clan was the only predictor of status ( R = .18). The results of stepwise regression
2
showed that for self-efficacy dimension, adhocracy culture (β = .38; p < 0.01) was the only
culture which predicts this dimension of psychological empowerment ( R =.14). For self2
efficacy, a total of 15% of variance was explained with adhocracy culture. Also, there was no
significant relationship between self-efficacy and market as well as hierarchy culture.
For autonomy, Clan culture was the only predictor of autonomy (β = .44; p< 0.01) was
the only culture which predicts autonomy ( R =.18). For autonomy, a total of 19% of variance
2
was explained with clan culture. Stepwise regression analysis results show that clan culture (β =
.448; p < 0.01) was significantly predicted impact. For impact, a total of 21 % of variance was
explained with clan culture. Clan was the only predictor of impact ( R =.20).
2
There was no significant relationship between impact and adhocracy culture. Similarly,
there were significant relationships between impact and two other types of market and hierarchy
cultures. Clan was the strongest predictor of decision making, professional growth, status,
autonomy and impact, while market was the second strongest predictor for decision making and
professional growth. Only adhocracy culture type had significant predictive power on selfefficacy and no significant prediction of hierarchy culture with any of the six psychological
empowerment components.
Discussion and Conclusion
The profile graph in Figure 3 shows that the type of dominant culture in research
universities from the academics’ perspective is hierarchy culture. Hofstede (2001) in the study on
cultural dimensions in different countries asserted that Malaysian work environments had high
20
power distance and is based on hierarchical relationship. Malaysian employees generally accept
the manager’s authority (Abdullah, 1996). Therefore, hierarchy is a dominant type of culture in
the selected Malaysian universities. This implies that a hierarchical structure exists between
academic staff, administrators, students, alumni, and probably the external community. The
hierarchy culture emphasizes an environment that is stable with long term perspective, and staff
and their roles are under control. Therefore, success is achieved by the incorporation of
standardized rules, formal and structured workplace procedures, and emphasis on rule
reinforcement (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Smart & St. John, 1996).
The research results reveal that organizational culture is a predictor of faculty
psychological empowerment. The results approve the previous studies that found contextual
factors such as organizational culture contributed to employees’ psychological empowerment
(Chiang & Jang, 2008). The result shows the role of organizational culture on increasing
academic staffs’ psychological empowerment. Organizational culture which is based on an open
communication and flexibility allows academics to participate in decision making and express
their opinions and support the feedbacks in universities. This culture contributes to fostering
psychological empowerment among academics in higher education. Because, psychological
empowerment is not a personality trait which can be generalized across situations, but it is rather
a set cognitions changed and shaped by work environments.
Specifically, clan culture was the strongest predictor of psychological empowerment and
its five components except self-efficacy. The clan culture is characterized as having high
flexibility, individuality, and spontaneity as well as internal emphasis. This concurs with what is
suggested, i.e. to have empowered academicians; family-type context is needed.
21
An effective university culture teaches and exhibits appropriate behavior, motivates
individuals, and governs information processing; these components of culture can shape internal
relations and values more than stereotypical and bureaucratic corporation. Clan culture
emphasizes flexibility and discretion rather than the stability and control of hierarchy. Therefore,
as clan culture is a strongest predictor for academicians’ psychological empowerment more
emphasis should be done on making the environment friendlier to the employees rather than
controlling them.
Results of study also indicate that adhocracy culture was a best predictor for self-efficacy
dimension of psychological empowerment. Self-efficacy refers to the academicians confidence
in their ability to teach and do research well. The self-efficacy among academicians in their
workplace leads to productivity, participation, creativity and innovation and being part of the
decision-making process. A major goal of an adhocracy is to foster adaptability, flexibility, and
creativity where uncertainty, ambiguity, and information overload are some of the common
characteristics. A high level of self-efficacy in such an environment is necessary as an evidence
for the academicians’ coping strategy. Hence, adhocracy culture is a contributor to improve selfefficacy of academicians in research universities.
Leaders in universities have to admit the importance of clan culture in the context of
higher education. It is agreeable as suggested by Park and Kim (2009) spending time to maintain
group harmony, encouraging mentoring system among the academics, and giving avenues to
academicians to voice ideas in their respective areas of expertise are some of the strategies that
should be adopted by universities. By creating a greater sense of psychological empowerment on
academic staff, more positive gain would be felt such as on levels of organizational commitment
and job satisfaction. An organizational culture that is conducive to change is one of the important
22
factors that can influence on psychological empowerment. Empowerment culture is needed in
research universities to improve effectiveness and quality of creating new knowledge which is
the main goal of these organizations.
Contribution to HRD
This study makes practical contributions to human resource development (HRD) by
giving new insight about the concept of psychological empowerment in higher education. The
knowledge gap in terms of link between psychological empowerment and organizational culture
in a higher education setting is fulfilled. Determining a relationship between organizational
culture and psychological empowerment provides empirical support for possible systematic
educational approaches or organizational changes that can foster empowerment and performance
in higher education. Creating culture of empowerment can influence academicians’ abilities to
become more qualified in their teaching and research responsibilities. Study findings contribute
to a greater awareness and better understanding of the potential influence the academic culture
may have on lecturers’ empowerment in teaching and research responsibilities.
This study has notable implications for HRD frontiers; especially the ones who are
interested in organizational effectiveness and development in educational settings by knowing
which type of organizational culture is predictive to academicians’ psychological empowerment.
Human resource practitioners and experts can take actions to create an organizational culture that
supports psychological empowerment of academicians because culture tends to be embedded in
and transmitted through the behavior of universities’ leaders. Empowerment may be an
important solution for attracting, keeping, and motivating employees. Academicians’
performance, productivity and professionalization are the issues which are important in overall
function of higher education particularly the research universities. The findings of this study may
23
provide better knowledge to HRD practitioners and leadership about factor which can help them
to achieve performance and effectiveness of academicians. The norms and shared values
eventually permeate to the procedures and outcomes in workplace. Therefore, it is important for
HRD practitioners and leaderships to examine the norms and values and how it could foster or
impede empowerment. This study provides insight on important role organizational culture has
on empowerment dimensions which in turn affect on lecturers’ workplace outcomes behaviors.
References
Abdullah, A. (1996). Going glocal, Kuala Lumpur, SL: Malaysian Institute of Management.
Al- Khalifa, K. N., & Aspinwall, E. M. (2001). Using the competing values framework
investigates the culture of Qatar industries, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 12(4), 417- 428.
Altbach, P. G. (2007). Peripheries and centers: Research universities in developing countries,
Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2) 1-24.
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalization and the university: myths and realities in an unequal world,
Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1) 3-25.
ASHE (2003). ASHE higher education report - governance in the twenty-first-century university:
approaches to effective leadership and strategic management, ASHE Higher Education
Report, 30(1), 41-49.
Asmawi, A., & Mohan, A. V. (2010). Understanding patterns of organizational culture: A study
in Malaysian R&D institutions, Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT),
2010 IEEE International Conference, Singapore, June 2010, (pp.324-329),Singapore.
Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework,
Journal of Higher Education, 45(1), 43-70.
Biron, M. & Bamberger, P. (2010) The impact of structural empowerment on individual wellbeing and performance: taking agent performances, self-efficacy and operational
constraints into account, Human Relations, 63(2), 163-191.
Brancato, V. (2006). Enhancing psychological empowerment for nurses. The Pennsylvania
Nurse. 61(2), 31-33.
Cameron, K. S., and Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chiang, C. F., and Jang, S. S. (2008). The antecedents and consequences of psychological
empowerment: The case of Taiwan's hotel companies. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
research, 32(1), 40-61.
Cai, Y. (2008). Quantitative assessment of organizational cultures in post-merger universities.
Cultural Perspectives in Higher Education, 3, 213-226.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
24
Devi, R. S., Chong, S. C. & Lin, B. (2007). Organizational culture and KM processes from the
perspective of an institution of higher learning, International Journal of Management in
Education, 1(1), 57-79.
Douglass, J. (2005). How all globalization is local: Countervailing forces and their influence on
Higher education markets, Higher Education 18, 445-473.
Ergeneli, A. Saglam, G., & Metin, S. (2007). Psychological empowerment and its relationship to
trust in immediate managers Journal of Business Research, 60 41–49 Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V7S-4M93P95Fralinger, B. (2007). Organizational culture at the university level: A study using the OCAI
instrument. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 4(11), 85-98.
Fralinger, B., Olson, V., Pinto-Zipp, G., & DiCorcia, M. (2010). Organizational Culture at the
university level: a follow-up study using the OCAI instrument, 2010 EABR & ETLC
Conference Proceedings, June7-10 Dublin, Ireland.
Ghani, A. Z., Raja Hussin, T. A. B., & Jussef, K. (2009). Antecedents of Psychological
Empowerment in the Malaysian Private Higher Education Institutions, Journal of
International Education Studies, 2(3) 161-165. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/viewFile/3341/3007
Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Naismith, N., & Soetanto, R. (2008).
Understanding empowerment from an employee perspective: What does it mean and do
they want it? , Team Performance Management, 14 (1) 39 – 55
Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organizational culture
and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes, Journal of
Business Research, 62(7), 673–679.
Gordon, G., & Whitchurch, C. (2007). Managing human resources in higher education: the
implications of a diversifying workforce. Higher Education Management and Policy,19
(2), 135-155. Retrieved from
eprints.ioe.ac.uk/.../GordonandWhitchurch2007ManagingHumanResources135.pdf
Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on the role
clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance, Accounting,
Organization and Society, 33(2/3) 141-163.
Hancer, M. R., & George R. T. (2003). Psychological Empowerment of Non-Supervisory
Employees in Full-Service Restaurants. Hospitality Management 22, 3-16.
Henkin, A. B., & Marchiori, D. M. (2003). Empowerment and organizational commitment of
chiropractic faculty, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 26(6), 275281.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, B.A. (2009). Empowerment of nurses through organizational culture, Nursing
Education Perspectives, 30(1) 8-13.
Kim, T. K. (2008). How Organizational Culture Affects the Empowerment of Social Workers?:
Application of Multilevel Modeling to Social Work Research, society for social work and
research The SSWR Annual Conference, Jan 2008, USA.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. (2009).Context matters the impact of unit
leadership and empowerment on nurses’ organizational commitment, the journal of
Nursing Administration, 39(5) 228-235.
25
Lee, M. & Koh, J. (2001). Is empowerment really a new concept? International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 12(4) 684-695.
Lincoln, S. (2010). From the individual to the world: how the competing values framework can
help organizations improve global strategic performance, Emerging Leadership Journeys,
3 (1), 3-9. Retrieved from
http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/elj/vol3iss1/Lincoln_ELJV3I1_pp3-9.pdf
Logan, M. S. & Ganster, D.C. (2007). The effects of empowerment on attitudes and
performance: the role of social support and empowerment beliefs, Journal of
Management Studies, 44(8), 1523-1550.
Machado, M. L. & Taylor, J. S. (2010). the struggle for strategic planning in European higher
education: the case of Portugal, Journal of Research in Higher Education, 1(1),2010
retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10198/2280
Manojlovich, M., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2002). The relationship of empowerment and selected
personality characteristics to nursing job satisfaction, Journal of Nursing Administration,
32(11) 586-595.
McInnis, C. (2000). Towards new balance or new divide? The changing work roles of
academicians in Australia, In M. Tight (ed.), International Perspectives on Higher
Education Research, Vol. 1 (pp. 117 - 145), Bingley, UK Emerald.
Meyer, D. (2005), Making academic careers more attractive – three basic principles, OECD
Conference on Trends in the Management of Human Resources, Paris, 25-26 August
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a
competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363–
377.
Samad, S. (2007). Social structural characteristics and employee empowerment: The role of
proactive personality, International Review of Business Research Papers, 3 (4) 254-264
retrieved from http://www.bizresearchpapers.com/Samad.pdf.
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership, (3rd ed), San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004) Taking empowerment to the next level: a
multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of
Academy Management, 47(3), 332-349.
Short, P. M. & Greer, J. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools, themes from innovative
efforts. New Jersey: Merrill.
Short, P. M., & Johnson, P. E. (1994). Exploring the Links among Teacher Empowerment,
Leader Power, and Conflict. Education, 114(4), 581-593.
Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). Empowerment within the School Environment School
Participant Empowerment Scale: Assessment of Level of. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 52(4), 951-961.
Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personnel
Review, 29(6), 703-722.
Sigler, T. H., & Pearson, C. M. (2000). Creating an empowering culture: examining the
relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment, Journal of
Quality Management, 5(1), 27-52.
Smart, J. C., & St. John, E. P. (1996). Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher
education: A test of the "Culture Type" and "Strong Culture" hypotheses. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 219-241.
26
Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,
and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5). Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/256865
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
39(2),
483-504.
Retrieved
from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/256789
Stock, G. N., McFadden, K. L., & Gowen, C. R. (2006). Organizational culture, critical success
factors and the reduction of hospital errors. International Journal of Production
Economics, 106, 368-92. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article.
Strazzeri, L. (2005). managing motivation and commitment versus compensation and research
institutions, OECD Conference in Trends in the Management of Human Resources, 25-26
August, 2005, Paris.
Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive element of empowerment: An interpretive model
of intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258687
Thorndyke, L. E., Gusic, M. E., George, J. H. , Quillen, D. A., & Milner, R. J. (2006).
Empowering junior faculty: Penn State's faculty development and mentoring program.
Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 81(7), 668-673.
Tierney, W. G. (2008). Trust and organizational culture in higher education, cultural perspectives
on higher education, 1, 27-41.
Trivellas, P., & Dargenidou, D. (2009). Organizational culture, job satisfaction and higher
education service quality: The case of Technological Educational Institute of Larissa, The
TQM Journal, 21 (4), 382-399.
Wan, E. (2005). Teacher empowerment as perceived by teachers in Hong Kong,
Teachers College
Record,
107,
842-861.
Retrieved
from
http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langbo=1&nodeID=2075.
Wang, G., & Lee, P. D. (2009). Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: an analysis of
interactive effects, Group Organization Management, 34(3) 271-296
Wei, F., Yuan, X., & Di, Y. (2010). Effects of transactional leadership, psychological
empowerment and empowerment climate on creative performance of subordinate: A
cross-level study. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 4(1), 29-46.
Wood, F. (2005). National capacity, competitiveness and scientific excellence. OECD
Conference on Trends in the Management of Human Resources, 25-26 August, Paris.
Womack, C. E., & Loyd, G. (2004). Quit essential Leadership: Leading by Design College
Quarterly, 7(2).
Yang, S. & Choi, S. O. (2009). Employee empowerment and team performance: Autonomy,
responsibility, information, and creativity Team Performance Management, 15 (5/6) 289301.
Yiing, L. H., & Ahmad, K. Z. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational culture on the
relationships between leadership behavior and organizational commitment and between
organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 30 (1) 53 – 86.
27