Content uploaded by Priyanko Guchait
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Priyanko Guchait on Oct 02, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
The influence of leader empowering behaviors and employee psychological empowerment on customer
satisfaction
Karthik Namasivayam Priyanko Guchait Puiwa Lei
Article information:
To cite this document:
Karthik Namasivayam Priyanko Guchait Puiwa Lei , (2014),"The influence of leader empowering behaviors and employee
psychological empowerment on customer satisfaction", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. 69 - 84
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2012-0218
Downloaded on: 02 October 2014, At: 13:48 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 56 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1293 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Elbeyi Pelit, Yüksel Öztürk, Yalç#n Arslantürk, (2011),"The effects of employee empowerment on employee job
satisfaction: A study on hotels in Turkey", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 Iss 6 pp.
784-802
Yahya Melhem, (2004),"The antecedents of customer#contact employees’ empowerment", Employee Relations, Vol. 26 Iss
1 pp. 72-93
Hsiang-Fei Luoh, Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur, Ya-Yun Tang, Fevzi Okumus, Fevzi Okumus, (2014),"Empowering employees: job
standardization and innovative behavior", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 Iss 7 pp.
-
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 173748 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
The influence of leader
empowering behaviors and
employee psychological
empowerment on customer
satisfaction
Karthik Namasivayam
Ecole Ho
ˆtelie
`re de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Priyanko Guchait
Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management,
University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA, and
Puiwa Lei
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine the role that psychological empowerment (PE) and employee
satisfaction (ES) play in the relationship between leader empowering behaviors (LEB) and customer
satisfaction (CS) and employees’ organizational commitment (OC).
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 365 frontline employees and 2,915
customers at 40 units of a chain restaurant in the USA.
Findings – Structural equation modeling (SEM) results indicated that LEB influences PE, and PE in
turn influences employee satisfaction, which consequently results in higher employees’ OC levels and
higher customer satisfaction.
Originality/value – Although recent hospitality research recognizes the importance of employee
empowerment and leadership, few studies have focused on leader empowering behaviors and its
influence on organizational outcomes. Moreover, potential mediating processes have not received
research attention. Addressing this, the current study tests a conceptual model that shows how leader
empowering behaviors ultimately lead to customer satisfaction through employee psychological
empowerment and job satisfaction. Although, some of these relationships have been studied
separately in different contexts, the current work shows the complete process of how leadership is
linked to organizational outcomes, which has not been previously studied.
Keywords Organizational commitment, Customer satisfaction, Employee satisfaction,
Leader empowering behaviors, Psychological empowerment
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Researchers and practitioners have recognized the importance of employee
empowerment at the frontline level in the hospitality industry where prompt action
is often required to deliver high quality service to customers (Kim et al., 2012;
Ottenbacher and Gnoth, 2005; Hartline and Ferrell, 1996; Heskett et al., 1997; Sergeant
and Frenkel, 2000). Researchers have also shown that empowered employees are more
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
Leader
empowering
behaviors
69
Received 15 November 2012
Revised 16 March 2013
27 May 2013
Accepted 1 June 2013
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 26 No. 1, 2014
pp. 69-84
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-11-2012-0218
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
likely to report higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Kim et al., 2012;
Bhatnagar, 2007; Liden et al., 2000). Customer evaluative judgments, such as perceived
service quality or satisfaction, are often used as indicators of organizational
effectiveness (Schneider et al., 1998; Anderson and Mittal, 2000). Despite abundant
theoretical evidence, there is a lack of research linking employee empowerment and
customer satisfaction, since integrating employee and customer data can be
challenging (de Jong et al., 2008).
Apart from methodological issues, the paucity of research in this area can also be
due to the cross-disciplinary theoretical foundations required to justify the
relationships. An important outcome of coproduction, where service customers
participate in the production of their own services, is customer satisfaction, a construct
that is often more relevant to consumer behavior and marketing research (Schneider
and White, 2004). Consequently, few researchers have explicitly linked organizational
practices, such as leadership behaviors and empowerment, to customer satisfaction.
A recent stream of research called “linkage research” focuses on connecting the
internal functioning of service organizations to customer satisfaction (Schneider et al.,
2005; Wiley, 1996). This research suggests that employees’ work experiences directly
affect customers’ experiences of the service and thereby customer satisfaction (Oliver,
1997). The “service-profit chain” (Heskett et al., 1997) outlines the links between internal
service quality (workplace/job design, employee selection and development, rewards and
recognition, and tools for serving customers) and customer satisfaction through employee
satisfaction. Using this perspective, the current work investigated the effects of an
important organizational mechanism (i.e. empowering leadership) on customer outcomes.
Few studies have considered a leader’s role in employee empowerment processes
(Konczak et al., 2000). However, diverse leadership behaviors have been examined; for
example, transformational leadership has been shown to improve employee outcomes
including satisfaction and to reduce job stress (Gill and Mathur, 2007; Gill et al., 2010a,
b). Hospitality researchers have examined the relationship between transformational
leadership and employees’ desire for empowerment (Gill et al., 2010a, b), leadership
competency on firm performance (Asree et al., 2010), ethical leadership on managers’
job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Kim and Brymer, 2011), and
leadership roles on organizational learning and effectiveness (Yang, 2010). Most
research, including that cited above, examines leadership concepts in totality. A few
studies have examined leader empowering behavior (Bennis and Townsend, 1997).
Empowering leadership has been linked with enhancement of empowered behavior
among hospitality employees (Klidas et al., 2007), and has been positively associated
with employee satisfaction, organizational commitment, and team-oriented
performance (Srivastava et al., 2006; Konczak et al., 2000). Most research focuses on
leader empowering behaviors (LEB) or employee psychological empowerment (PE) as
predictors of outcomes such as job satisfaction. To our knowledge, a study by Konczak
et al. (2000) is the only study to examine LEB as a predictor of PE. Konczak et al. (2000)
found that leader behaviors impact employees’ experience of psychological
empowerment. The current work builds on their conceptual framework. Much
extant research has sampled managers in manufacturing companies. However, it is
critical to test this relationship in a hospitality/service context with non-managerial
(line-level) employees for three reasons:
IJCHM
26,1
70
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
(1) increased autonomy of employees is important in providing excellent customer
service (Gill et al., 2010a, b);
(2) to ensure that employees act autonomously, it is critical that they feel
psychologically empowered (Ro and Chen, 2011); and
(3) LEB is recognized as important for enhancing employees’ PE (Brownell, 2010).
In the extant literature, LEB and PE have been studied from two perspectives:
(1) a structural approach focuses on leader actions which involve sharing
responsibility and power with employees (Kirkman and Rosen, 1997) and
resulting outcomes; and
(2) a psychological perspective focusing on employees’ responses to empowerment
emphasizing employee motivation (Conger and Kanungo, 1988).
The current work integrates these two research streams and traces the pathways
through which managerial actions, here leadership behaviors (LEB), influence
employee motivation (PE) and the consequent effects on organizational performance
(customer satisfaction).
In summation, using the “linkage research” framework (Schneider et al., 2005), the
current work presents and empirically examines a theoretical framework (see Figure 1)
modeling the role of LEB in PE, employee job satisfaction and commitment levels, and
consequent effects on customer satisfaction.
The following sections review the literature on LEB, PE, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and customer satisfaction. Research hypotheses are
developed and presented based on this review. Next, research methodology and
interpretation of the results is followed by research implications and suggestions for
hospitality practitioners.
Literature review and hypotheses development
Psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment refers to a motivational process that enhances employees’
self-efficacy (Kim et al., 2012; Conger and Kanungo, 1988). It is also conceptualized as
intrinsic task motivation based on four task-related employee work role cognitions
resulting in a four-dimensional construct including meaning (the fit between values and
job), competence (self-efficacy), self-determination (autonomy over task), and impact
(influence over job outcomes) (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Kim et al., 2012). Empirical
studies show that empowerment enhances self-efficacy resulting in employee satisfaction
and increased organizational commitment (OC) (Kim et al., 2012; Conger and Kanungo,
Figure 1.
Conceptual model
Leader
empowering
behaviors
71
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
1988; Liden et al., 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Bhatnagar, 2007). Hospitality research has
found positive relationships between PE and job satisfaction among hotel workers
(Chiang and Jang, 2008), restaurant workers (Gazzoli et al., 2010), and US hotel managers
(Salazar et al., 2006) and between PE and OC among hotel employees (Chiang and Jang,
2008) and upscale hotel restaurant employees (Kim et al., 2012). Therefore, there is
adequate evidence showing that PE leads to employee satisfaction and OC.
Practitioners and service researchers agree that satisfied and committed frontline
employees are likely to deliver the highest level of service quality (Singh, 2000; Hartline
et al., 2000). J.W. Marriott, the founder of Marriott Hotels, is quoted as saying “A happy
employee is a happy guest”. Hartline and Ferrell (1996) found that managers must
increase employees’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction in order to increase customer’s
perceptions of service quality. Malhotra and Mukherjee (2004) showed that job
satisfaction and OC have a significant influence on service quality delivered by the
customer-contact employees. Thus, anecdotal as well as empirical research shows that
satisfied and committed employees provide higher quality customer service.
Building on past evidence, the current research argues that PE will improve job
satisfaction of employees, which will result in high customer satisfaction. Therefore,
the mediation effect of employee satisfaction on the relationship between PE and
customer satisfaction is proposed.
H1. Employee satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PE and customer
satisfaction.
The relationships between PE, OC, and the delivery of high quality services were
discussed earlier. The current work focuses on OC as a dependent variable. While
studies have shown the relationship between PE and OC (Konczak et al., 2000), some
scholars suggest that PE directly influences employee satisfaction and only indirectly
influences OC (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Kim et al., 2012). However, this relationship
needs empirical investigation since some (e.g. Mowday et al., 1979) suggest that the two
constructs are independent and operate at different levels: OC refers to organizational
attachment while job satisfaction refers to feelings about a specific job. However, most
studies consider satisfaction to be an antecedent of OC (e.g. Brown and Peterson, 1994).
Accordingly, the current work examines the mediation of employee satisfaction on the
relationship between PE and OC. The following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. Employee satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PE and OC.
Leader empowering behaviors (LEB)
Researchers have examined a leader’s role in employee empowerment (Conger and
Kanungo, 1988; Konczak et al., 2000; Bartram and Casimir, 2007). Konczak et al. (2000)
conceptualized LEB as a six-dimensional construct including:
(1) authority;
(2) accountability;
(3) self-directed decision-making;
(4) information sharing;
(5) skill development; and
(6) coaching for innovative performance.
IJCHM
26,1
72
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
Empowerment implies granting necessary authority and autonomy enabling
subordinates to exercise control over workplace decisions (Clark et al., 2009). Ford
and Fottler (1995) argued that empowerment is a mechanism by which individuals and
teams are held accountable for outcomes. Leaders engaging in LEB encourage
subordinates to identify and correct problems in work processes (Wellins et al., 1991).
Empowerment requires managers to share information and knowledge, thereby
enhancing subordinates’ work performance (Ford and Fottler, 1995). Wellins et al.
(1991) suggested that empowering leaders support employee skill development.
Coaching refers to behaviors that encourage employees to engage in calculated risk
taking and coming up with new ideas, and treats mistakes and setbacks as learning
opportunities (Konczak et al., 2000). These LEB increase intrinsic motivation by
influencing assessments related to meaning, competence, self-determination, and
impact (Konczak et al., 2000). Therefore, when leaders demonstrate these six behaviors,
subordinates’ experience of PE will improve (Konczak et al., 2000). Additionally,
Spreitzer (1996) argued that individuals who perceive high levels of supervisor social
support are likely to report higher levels of empowerment. Menon (1995) found that
leadership behaviors such as mentoring, consulting, recognizing, and inspiring
resulted in greater perceived control and empowerment among subordinates.
Therefore, the literature provides substantial evidence of the positive relationship
between LEB and PE. Further, since the relationship between PE and employee
satisfaction has been established, we anticipate that LEB will impact employee
satisfaction indirectly through its effect on PE. The following hypotheses are proposed:
H3. LEB will be positively related to PE.
H4. PE will mediate the relationship between LEB and employee job satisfaction.
Methodology
Sample
Restaurants were chosen for our study because:
.each restaurant unit’s success depends on customer satisfaction based on the
service quality level at a focal unit; and
.restaurant service demands interaction between managers and employees,
creating an environment where managers’ leadership behaviors are likely to
have a high impact on employees (Clark et al., 2009).
Employees’ subjective interpretations of such organizational environments influence
psychological empowerment (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Kim et al.,
2012). To obtain a sample, the human resources manager at a mid-sized family
restaurant chain based in the Northeastern US was contacted. The first author had
trained frontline associates and had access to the management team. The firm
provided research access to their associates and guests. In return, the company was
provided aggregated analyses of customer satisfaction, employees’ job satisfaction,
and commitment levels. Anonymity and confidentiality of the collected data was
ensured – the organization only had access to summary reports.
Survey instruments were distributed to 365 frontline employees; usable data were
collected from 238 employees from 40 units of the restaurant company. The response
rate was 65 percent. Eighty-six percent of the sample was female. Employee ages
Leader
empowering
behaviors
73
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
ranged from 18 years to 74 years; the average was 33 years (SD ¼14:69). Nine-two
percent of the respondents were Caucasian and 54 percent were single. Customer
satisfaction data were collected from 2,915 customers mainly via printed surveys and
online responses. Unit managers distributed printed surveys to guests; in addition, the
same survey was also loaded on the company website and guests had a choice of either
filling out the paper survey or responding online. Sixty percent of the respondents were
female. The average age was 48 years (SD ¼17:05).
Procedure
Data were collected in three phases. In the first phase, LEB data were collected from
employees. The second phase was conducted 15 days later and data on psychological
empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment were collected from the
same employees. This temporal separation ensured a gap between the measurement of
the predictor and criterion variables to control for common method biases (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). To further strengthen the study, dependent variable data about the overall
satisfaction were collected separately from customers. Obtaining measures of predictor
and criterion variables from different sources helped control for common method biases
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). Customer data were collected at the same time as the second wave
of data from employees using the method described above.
The survey questionnaires were distributed through company mail to all frontline
employees in all units. Employees were provided with pre-stamped return envelopes to
ensure anonymity. The envelopes were returned directly to the investigators, which
assured confidentiality. Each unit was assigned a unique code, which was marked on
each envelope. Customer data were collected from each unit in a similar manner.
Measures
Konczak et al. (2000) validated a six-dimensional scale measuring LEB. We adopted 16
of the 17 items listed in Konczak et al. (2000). A sample item is “My manager gives me
the authority I need to make decisions that improve work processes and procedures”.
Items were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼strongly disagree,
7¼strongly agree). Using this scale, participants rated the degree to which their
managers engaged in empowering behaviors. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for
the 16-item scale indicated a single second-order factor solution with an acceptable fit
(
x
2¼267:24, df ¼98, p,0:01; CFI ¼0:98, RMSEA ¼0:08). All measurement items
showed statistically significant loadings at the
a
level of 0.01. Based on this, and in line
with prior research (Ahearne et al., 2005), we averaged the six scale scores to create a
single composite score. Cronbach’s
a
for the scale was 0.96.
As noted, the four-dimensional PE construct was assessed using a 12-item scale
(Spreitzer, 1995). A sample item from the scale is “The work I do is very important to me”.
Items were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼strongly disagree,
7¼strongly agree). Since we focused on overall empowerment, and in line with prior
research (Chen et al., 2007; Chen and Klimoski, 2003), the four dimensions were collapsed
into an overall individual empowerment scale. Cronbach’s
a
for the scale was 0.90.
Employee satisfaction was measured with two items (Hirschfield, 2000). A sample
item from the scale is “How satisfied are you with your job in general?”. Cronbach’s
a
was 0.95. While some suggest Cronbach’s
a
should be used to evaluate a two-item
scale, others argue that a correlation coefficient is appropriate (Cudeck, 2001).
IJCHM
26,1
74
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
Following recommendations, reliabilities using the Spearman-Brown formula were
also calculated (Cudeck, 2001); the scale reliability was acceptable (0.94).
Organizational commitment was measured by a nine-item scale (Mowday et al.,
1979). A sample item from the scale is “I am willing to put in a great deal of effort
beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful”. Items
were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼strongly disagree, 7 ¼strongly
agree). Cronbach’s
a
was 0.95.
To verify whether the four dimensions of psychological empowerment, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment were distinct from each other, a CFA was
conducted by introducing all the items of the six scales. A six-factor solution,
corresponding to the six scales, was found to have an acceptable fit (
x
2¼488:45,
df ¼215, p,0:01; CFI ¼0:99, RMSEA ¼0:07), indicating the distinctiveness of the
measures.
This study included customer satisfaction as a dependent variable. The survey with
the customer satisfaction items was administered to guests as described above.
Customer satisfaction was measured with a 6-item scale (Namasivayam and Mattila,
2007). A sample item from the scale is “Overall, how satisfied were you with your
dining experience on this particular occasion?” Cronbach’s
a
was 0.97.
Analysis
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses. All SEM models
were estimated using MPlus (Version 6). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were first
conducted to examine whether the hypothesized factor structure for customer satisfaction,
Time 1 LEB measures, and Time 2 measures were supported by the sample data. The
robust weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimator was used to estimate the CFA models.
The nested data structure (i.e. customers or employees nested within stores) was taken
into account in MPlus by declaring the existence of clusters. The six-variable one-factor
simple CFA model fit the customer satisfaction data quite well (
x
2¼49:22, df ¼9,
p,0:01; CFI ¼0:99, RMSEA ¼0:04), indicating that the six items measured a common
factor (standardized loadings ranged from 0.94 to 0.96). The 16-variable six-factor simple
CFA model fit the LEB item response data reasonably well (
x
2¼225:77, df ¼89,
p,0:01; CFI ¼0:99, RMSEA ¼0:08).TheLEBitemsloadedquitestronglyontheir
respective factors (standardized loadings ranged from 0.77 to 0.99). The hierarchical CFA
model with a second-order factor explaining the covariance among the LEB first-order
subscale factors also fit the data acceptably well (
x
2¼267:25, df ¼98, p,0:01;
CFI ¼0:98, RMSEA ¼0:08), suggesting that the LEB subscales measured a
higher-order common factor and that it might be reasonable to aggregate the LEB
subscales. Based on this, and in line with prior research (Ahearne et al., 2005), we
averaged the six scale scores to create a single composite score.
The 23-variable six-factor simple CFA model (four subscales of psychological
empowerment, organizational commitment, and employee satisfaction) fit the Time 2 item
response data reasonably well (
x
2¼488:45, df ¼215, p,0:01; CFI ¼0:99,
RMSEA ¼0:07). The items loaded reasonably strongly on their respective factors
(standardized loadings ranged from 0.73 to 0.98). The hierarchical CFA model with an
additional second-order factor explaining the covariance among the four first-order
psychological empowerment subscale factors also fit the data acceptably well
(
x
2¼543:23, df ¼222, p,0:01; CFI ¼0:98, RMSEA ¼0:08), suggesting that the
Leader
empowering
behaviors
75
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
psychological empowerment subscales measured a higher-order common factor and that
it might be reasonable to aggregate these subscales. Given that we focused on overall
empowerment, and in line with prior research (Chen et al., 2007; Chen and Klimoski, 2003),
the four empowerment dimensions were collapsed into an overall individual
empowerment scale. Additionally, the findings indicated the distinctiveness of the
measures of psychological empowerment, organizational commitment, and employee
satisfaction. The average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs were greater than the
minimum criterion of 0.50 and were also greater than the squared correlation between
constructs, ensuring convergent and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2010).
Results
Table I contains correlations and descriptive statistics for all study variables. The
hypothesized overall model showed a good fit (
x
2¼10:58, df ¼12, p.0:01;
CFI ¼0:99, RMSEA ¼0:01). H1 stated that employee satisfaction will mediate the
relationship between psychological empowerment and customer satisfaction. The
direct path from psychological empowerment to employee satisfaction (
b
¼0:53,
p,0:01) and from employee satisfaction to customer satisfaction (
b
¼0:42, p,0:05)
were significant (Figure 2). Additionally, the total indirect effect from psychological
empowerment to customer satisfaction through employee satisfaction was
significantly positive (
b
¼0:22, p,0:05). Therefore, H1 was supported.
H2 stated that employee satisfaction will mediate the relationship between
psychological empowerment and organizational commitment. The direct paths from
psychological empowerment to employee satisfaction (
b
¼0:53, p,0:01) and from
employee satisfaction to organizational commitment (
b
¼0:78, p,0:01) were
significant. Additionally, the total indirect effect from psychological empowerment to
MSD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Leader empowering behaviors 4.71 0.85 (0.96)
2. Psychological empowerment 5.66 0.37 0.42 *(0.90)
3. Employee satisfaction 5.36 0.79 0.30 ** 9.56 *(9.95)
4. Organizational commitment 5.25 0.74 0.23 9.51 *9.81 *(9.94)
5. Customer satisfaction 6.57 0.16 20.12 9.15 9.57 *9.58 *(0.97)
Notes: Cronbach’s
a
values are reported on the diagonal in parentheses; *p,0:01; **p ,0:06
Table I.
Correlation matrix and
descriptive statistics
Figure 2.
Structural path
coefficients
IJCHM
26,1
76
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
organizational commitment through employee satisfaction was significantly positive
(
b
¼0:41, p,0:01). Therefore, H2 was supported.
H4 stated that psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between
LEB and employee satisfaction. The direct path from LEB to PE (
b
¼0:42, p,0:01)
(also supporting H3) and from PE to employee satisfaction (
b
¼0:53, p,0:01) were
found to be significant (Figure 2). Additionally, the total indirect effect from LEB to
employee satisfaction through PE was significantly positive (
b
¼0:20, p,0:05).
Therefore, H4 was supported.
Discussion
The findings of this study suggest that leader empowering behaviors (LEB) has an
indirect effect on customer satisfaction and employees’ organizational commitment.
LEB was positively related to psychological empowerment (PE), which in turn was
related to employee satisfaction. Consequently, employee satisfaction was positively
related to customer satisfaction and organizational commitment of employees. The
implications of our findings and the limitations of our research are discussed below.
Theoretical implications
Our findings extend previous research in three ways. First, we found that LEB influenced
PE among non-managerial (line-level) employees in the hospitality industry. Although
Konczak et al. (2000) used subordinates as samples to validate the LEB scale, their actual
study investigating the LEB to PE relationship employed a managerial sample. In
contrast, we examined non-managerial hospitality employees. To our knowledge, no prior
research has assessed the LEB to PE relationship with line-level hospitality employees.
The motives, attitudes (including PE), and behaviors of managers and line-level
employees may be different and therefore the LEB-PE relationship may also be different.
Further, Hechanova et al. (2006) showed that PE level varies by industry. Therefore, this
study confirms that the LEB to PE relationship is also supported among non-managerial
service employees, enhancing the generalizability of the theory. Future research can
examine potential differences between managerial and non-managerial employees with
regards to LEB and PE perceptions and whether an employee’s rank moderates the
relationship between LEB and PE.
Second, frontline hospitality employees were an important sample because of the
implications for organizational performance and the consequent relevance to
empowering leadership theories. Employee empowerment is crucial to the
hospitality industry since excellent customer service requires employees to be
empowered in order for them to make service decisions independently (Gill et al.,
2010a, b). Hospitality scholars note that employees must perceive psychological
empowerment in order to engage in autonomous behaviors (Ro and Chen, 2011). It is
important to investigate organizational factors, such as leadership, that influence
employees’ PE (Ro and Chen, 2011; Gill et al., 2010a, b). Recent studies identified the
next step in leadership evolution as servant leadership, in which leaders support and
empower subordinates (Brownell, 2010). Our study provides strong support for these
arguments since the findings indicate the influence of LEB on employees’ PE, attitudes,
and organizational outcomes.
Third, to our knowledge, although previous studies have linked PE with employee
outcomes such as job satisfaction (Konczak et al., 2000), organizational commitment
Leader
empowering
behaviors
77
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
(Kim et al., 2012), and employee performance (Seibert et al., 2004), PE has not been
linked directly or indirectly to organizational outcomes (e.g. customer satisfaction). A
unique finding of our study is that employee satisfaction mediates the relationship
between PE and customer satisfaction. This finding is important because it suggests
that when employees express higher job satisfaction due to PE, they are more likely to
deliver excellent service quality, thereby resulting in higher customer satisfaction.
Furthermore, the finding that LEB facilitates PE and employee satisfaction
strengthens the contribution of this paper.
In summation, the findings are consistent with studies that demonstrated links
between PE, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Further, results from
earlier studies linking job satisfaction and consumer satisfaction were supported.
Building on these extant connections among constructs, this project modeled and
tested the chain of causation from LEBs to customer satisfaction in one study, which
has not been previously done. This has helped to advance our understanding of the
mechanisms through which organizational action affects customer satisfaction.
Overall, the present study has provided empirical support to two key arguments made
by recent hospitality scholars:
(1) employee empowerment is an important predictor of employee and
organizational outcomes, especially in the hospitality industry (Ro and Chen,
2011); and
(2) because psychological empowerment is crucial, there is a need to focus
specifically on organizational leadership (i.e. leader empowering behaviors) that
influences psychological empowerment (Brownell, 2010).
Until now, research has demonstrated the relationships between various organizational
factors such as job characteristics, training, and job satisfaction and customer
satisfaction. This project has shown that leadership behaviors are responsible for
customer satisfaction and so opens up a stream of potential research directed at
understanding which leader behaviors or actions result in customer satisfaction. While
this study focused on leader empowering behaviors, future research can examine other
behaviors such as supportive and participative leadership (Yukl, 2012). It is also
important to identify the conditions under which leadership behaviors influence
outcomes. The boundary conditions such as age, educational level, job rank, and nature of
the job can all be investigated. For example, does the relationship hold equally among
hotel front desk or among kitchen employees, among older or younger employees, or for
more educated or less educated individuals? The research has refined our understanding
of the relationships among the variables of interest in this study. Previous research has
mainly focused on the relationships among specific constructs; by tracing the pathways
from leadership behaviors through employee reactions to consumers, this study has
extended this stream of theorizing.
Managerial implications
This study has shown that leadership behaviors are important to ensuring consumer
satisfaction. A key finding of this study was that leadership behaviors have a direct effect
on employee satisfaction and consequently customer satisfaction. These results direct
leaders (managers) to recognize that their own job-related behaviors have a relationship to
customer satisfaction. Stated differently, the manner in which leaders relate to their
IJCHM
26,1
78
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
front-line employees has an effect on both customer satisfaction and firm performance.
This study focused on evaluating the impact of leadership behaviors that empower
employees and found that there was a positive relationship. Hence, it is important for
hospitality leaders to understand which of their behaviors directly impact their
employees’ behaviors and consequently impact organizational outcomes such as
customer satisfaction. This study has shown that LEBs including delegation of authority,
ensuring accountability, enabling decision making, sharing appropriate information, and
helping subordinates to improve their skill levels greatly enhances the PE of employees.
This in turn enhances employee satisfaction with their jobs and permits them the
psychological freedom to provide quality services. Accordingly, practicing managers and
leaders should examine their empowering behaviors and perhaps modify them to enhance
positive organizational outcomes.
The results of this research are also useful in designing training programs for
managers and those in leadership positions within organizations. The results suggest
that organizations should ensure frontline managers are made aware of behaviors that
impact customer satisfaction. Based on the study results, it is further suggested that
organizations develop training programs to help frontline mangers understand
appropriate behavior sets that will enhance customer satisfaction. Leaders should be
trained in practicing the sets of behaviors that enhance the sense of autonomy among
employees identified by this research. The six dimensions of the scale used in this
paper list the various behaviors that employees found important and empowering.
Training programs designed to assist managers to empower their employees can be
developed based on the scale items.
Since the study has noted that employees perceive some degree of psychological
empowerment on the basis of their managers’ actions, it is important for organizations
to continually measure the extent to which their managers engage in empowering
behaviors. Setting up an appropriate reward system that encourages managers to
adopt LEB will enhance organizational performance.
Finally, the results of this study also replicate earlier findings that employee job
satisfaction is important in enhancing customer satisfaction. The study extends this
relationship and provides evidence that employee job satisfaction depends to a great
extent on leader empowering behaviors. While a number of factors relate to employee
satisfaction, this study shows that LEB have an important effect. Therefore, it may be
prudent to measure the level of employee satisfaction due to leadership behaviors
separately and in addition to other factors during the periodic employee satisfaction
surveys that organizations conduct. The inclusion of this dimension in employee surveys
will add important information about a factor that influences employee satisfaction levels.
Further, through appropriate analysis of the responses, necessary corrective action
(e.g. manager training) can be taken.
Limitations and future research
The findings, as with most cross-sectional research projects, should be interpreted with
caution. Data collection from one single organization helps to control for organizational
factors; however, the results may not be generalizable. Further investigations in other
organizations and other industry groups may be required before the conclusions drawn
in this study can be fully accepted. Another limitation of the study was an uneven
distribution of various demographic groups with respect to gender and ethnicity, thus
Leader
empowering
behaviors
79
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
preventing us from performing additional analyses to incorporate group differences in
the model. It is possible that different groups responded to the study variables
differently. Future research can take these factors into consideration and examine
potential moderating effects. Researchers need to ensure that the sample includes even
distribution of different demographic groups in order to make meaningful comparisons
and to incorporate group differences in the model.
Notwithstanding the study limitations, the results point to potential future research.
LEB were examined in this study especially in the context of services; it is possible that
other leadership characteristics (other than empowering behaviors) may have more
influence in other organizational settings or at different levels of the organizations (for
example, managers may be differently influenced than front line associates). In this study,
the mediation of job satisfaction and PE were examined, but it is possible that other
candidate variables such as organizational climate or justice concepts will provide
alternate explanations for organizational outcomes such as customer satisfaction. Recent
research has suggested that cultural factors may also affect the relationship between
leader and follower outcomes (Gill et al., 2010a, b). It will be interesting to investigate how
culture affects the relationship between LEB and employee PE, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and organizational outcomes.
Theoretically, it is important to understand the pathways by which certain
organizational actions cascade into outcomes of interest to the organization. It is
possible that leadership behaviors in and of themselves are inadequate and other
enabling conditions are required. For example, perhaps an individual employee’s
capacity to assume responsibility and to be accountable also has an important role to
play and future research may need to control for individual personality differences.
Organizational type and therefore, organizational systems such as recruiting and
compensation practices were controlled in this study. However, it is important to
investigate the extent to which local unit operational variations, apart from leadership
style, influence the relationships reported in this study. It is important for managers to
understand the extent to which their own behaviors, and more importantly, which of
their behaviors, influence organizational outcomes. This study has identified one set of
behaviors that have an important effect; future research should investigate other
variables. This elucidation will help managers to maximize desirable organizational
outcomes through managing their own behaviors.
References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, A. (2005), “To empower or not to empower your sales force?
An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on
customer satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5,
pp. 945-955.
Anderson, E.W. and Mittal, V. (2000), “Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 107-120.
Asree, S., Zain, M. and Razalli, M.R. (2010), “Influence of leadership competency and
organizational culture on responsiveness and performance of firms”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 500-516.
Bartram, T. and Casimir, G. (2007), “The relationship between leadership and follower in-role
performance and satisfaction with the leader: the mediating effects of empowerment and
trust in the leader”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 4-19.
IJCHM
26,1
80
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
Bennis, W.G. and Townsend, R. (1997), Reinventing Leadership: Strategies to Empower the
Organization, Morrow/Avon, New York, NY.
Bhatnagar, J. (2007), “Predictors of organizational commitment in India: strategic HR roles,
organizational learning capability and psychological empowerment”, International Journal
of Human Resources Management, Vol. 18 No. 10, pp. 1782-1811.
Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1994), “The effect of effort on sales performance and job
satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 70-80.
Brownell, J. (2010), “Leadership in the service of hospitality”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51
No. 3, pp. 363-378.
Chen, G. and Klimoski, R.J. (2003), “The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in
teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 591-607.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B.L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D. and Rosen, B. (2007), “A multilevel study of
leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 331-346.
Chiang, C.F. and Jang, S. (2008), “The antecedents and consequences of psychological
empowerment: the case of Taiwan’s hotel companies”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 40-61.
Clark, R.A., Hartline, M.D. and Jones, K.C. (2009), “The effects of leadership style on hotel
employees’ commitment to service quality”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 209-230.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-482.
Cudeck, R. (2001), “Measurement”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 55-69.
de Jong, A., Wetzels, M. and de Ruyter, K. (2008), “Linking employee perceptions of collective
efficacy in self-managing service teams with customer perceived service quality”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 353-378.
Ford, R.C. and Fottler, M.D. (1995), “Empowerment: a matter of degree”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 21-28.
Gazzoli, G., Hancer, M. and Park, Y. (2010), “The role and effect of job satisfaction and
empowerment on customers’ perception of service quality: a study in the restaurant
industry”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 34, pp. 56-77.
Gill, A.S. and Mathur, N. (2007), “Improving employee dedication and pro-social behavior”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 328-334.
Gill, A., Flaschner, A.B., Shah, C. and Bhutani, I. (2010a), “The relations of transformational
leadership and empowerment with employee job satisfaction: a study among Indian
restaurant employees”, Business and Economics Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 1-10.
Gill, A., Fitzgerald, S., Bhutani, S., Mand, H. and Sharma, S. (2010b), “The relationship between
transformational leadership and employee desire for empowerment”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 263-273.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hartline, M.D. and Ferrell, O.C. (1996), “The management of customer-contact service employees:
an empirical investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 52-70.
Hartline, M.D., Maxham, J.G. III and McKee, D.O. (2000), “Corridors of influence in the
dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 35-50.
Leader
empowering
behaviors
81
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
Hechanova, M.R.M., Alampay, R.B.A. and Franco, E.P. (2006), “Psychological empowerment, job
satisfaction and performance among Filipino service workers”, Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 72-78.
Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1997), The Service Profit Chain, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Hirschfeld, R.R. (2000), “Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire short form make a difference?”, Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 2255-2270.
Kim, W.G. and Brymer, R.A. (2011), “The effects of ethical leadership on manager job
satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm performance”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1020-1026.
Kim, B., Lee, G., Murrmann, S.K. and George, T.R. (2012), “Motivational effects of empowerment
on employees’ organizational commitment: a mediating role of management
trustworthiness”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 10-19.
Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1997), “A model of work team empowerment”, in Woodman, R.W.
and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 131-167.
Klidas, A., van den Berg, P.T. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2007), “Managing employee empowerment
in luxury hotels in Europe”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 70-88.
Konczak, L.J., Stelly, D.J. and Trusty, M.L. (2000), “Defining and measuring empowering leader
behaviors: development of an upward feedback instrument”, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 60, pp. 301-312.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000), “An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships,
and work outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 407-417.
Malhotra, N. and Mukherjee, A. (2004), “The relative influence of organizational commitment and
job satisfaction on service quality of customer-contact employees in banking call centers”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 162-174.
Menon, S.T. (1995), Employee Empowerment: Definition, Measurement and Construct Validation,
McGill University, Montreal.
Mowday, R.T., Steer, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), Employee Organization Linkages, Academic
Press, New York, NY.
Namasivayam, K. and Mattila, A.S. (2007), “Accounting for the joint effects of the servicescape
and service exchange on consumers’ satisfaction evaluations”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-18.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, Irwin/McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Ottenbacher, M. and Gnoth, J. (2005), “How to develop successful hospitality innovation”, Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 46, pp. 205-222.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.
Ro, H. and Chen, P. (2011), “Empowerment in hospitality organizations: customer orientation and
organizational support”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30,
pp. 422-428.
IJCHM
26,1
82
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
Salazar, J., Pfaffenberg, C. and Salazar, L. (2006), “Locus of control vs. employee empowerment
and the relationship with hotel managers’ job satisfaction”, Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Schneider, B. and White, S.S. (2004), Service Quality: Research Perspectives, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Schneider, B., White, S.S. and Paul, M.C. (1998), “Linking service climate and customer
perceptions to service quality: test of a causal model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83
No. 2, pp. 150-163.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., Mayer, D.M., Saltz, J.L. and Niles-Jolly, K. (2005), “Understanding
organization-customer links in service settings”, The Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 48, pp. 1017-1032.
Seibert, S.E., Silver, S.R. and Randolph, W.A. (2004), “Taking empowerment to the next level:
a multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction”, Academy of
Management, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 332-349.
Sergeant, A. and Frenkel, S. (2000), “When do customer contact employees satisfy customers?”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3, pp. 18-34.
Singh, J. (2000), “Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service
organizations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 15-34.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement
and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 483-504.
Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997), “A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 679-704.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management
teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 1239-1251.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’
model on intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 666-681.
Wellins, R.S., Byham, W.C. and Wilson, J.M. (1991), Empowered Reams, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Wiley, J.W. (1996), “Linking survey results to customer satisfaction and business performance”,
in Kraut, A.I. (Ed.), Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 330-359.
Yang, J. (2010), “Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing in international tourist
hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29, pp. 42-52.
Yukl, G. (2012), Leadership in Organizations, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
About the authors
Dr Karthik Namasivayam is Associate Dean at the Ecole Hoteliere, Lausanne. Prior to this he
was Director-Operations at Velan Hotels Ltd, Tirupur, India. Until 2011 he was an Associate
Professor of Organizational Behavior at the School of Hospitality Management, Pennsylvania
State University. He received his Master’s and PhD from Cornell University. He has published
peer-reviewed articles in the areas of intellectual capital in service industry, services
management, consumer satisfaction, and human resources management.
Leader
empowering
behaviors
83
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
Dr Priyanko Guchait is an Assistant Professor in the College of Hotel and Restaurant
Management at the University of Houston. His research focuses on the application of the
theoretical frames from organizational behavior, and organizational psychology to the service
industry. He received his PhD in Hospitality Management and a Master’s in Human Resources
and Employment Relations from Pennsylvania State University, and a Master’s in Hospitality
Management from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He has published peer-reviewed articles
in the areas of human resources management, services management/marketing, and customer
satisfaction. Priyanko Guchait is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
pguchait@uh.edu
Dr Puiwa Lei is an Associate Professor at the Department of Educational and School
Psychology and Special Education, Pennsylvania State University. She received her PhD from
the University of Iowa. Her research interests are in methodological issues of multivariate
statistical analyses, particularly structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. Her
research has been published in professional journals of measurement and statistics.
IJCHM
26,1
84
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur, Chih-Hung Wang, Chang-Hua Yen, Yi-Chun Liu. 2014. Job standardization
and service quality: The mediating role of prosocial service behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 40, 130-138. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:48 02 October 2014 (PT)
