A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 527–545 (2004)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.256

A longitudinal analysis of the impactof workplace empowerment on worksatisfaction

HEATHER K. SPENCE LASCHINGER1*, JOAN E. FINEGAN2,

JUDITH SHAMIAN3 AND PIOTR WILK4

1School of Nursing, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada2Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada3Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada4Department of Sociology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

Summary A longitudinal predictive design was used to test a model linking changes in structural andpsychological empowerment to changes in job satisfaction. Structural equation modeling ana-lyses revealed a good fit of the data from 185 randomly selected staff nurses to the hypothe-sized model. Changes in perceived structural empowerment had direct effects on changes inpsychological empowerment and job satisfaction. Changes in psychological empowermentdid not explain additional variance in job satisfaction beyond that explained by structuralempowerment. The results suggest that fostering environments that enhance perceptions ofempowerment can have enduring positive effects on employees. Copyright # 2004 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Empowerment in the workplace is a popular idea that has permeated both the popular and scientific

literature. Practitioners view empowerment as a tool to encourage workers to think for themselves

about the requirements of the job, and to move beyond blindly doing what they are told (Thorlakson

& Murray, 1996). Empowerment involves learning how to take the initiative and to respond creatively

to the challenges of the job (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997). One of the earliest proponents of empowerment

was Kanter. In her seminal book, Men and Women of the Corporation (1977), she argued that char-

acteristics of the organization determine empowerment. More specifically, she argued that both formal

job characteristics and informal alliances affect the ability of employees to accomplish their work.

Similarly, organizational mobility and the possibility for personal growth influence job accomplish-

ment. These factors together determine the degree to which a person feels empowered. Empowered

employees are generally more satisfied with their job.

Received 29 July 2002Revised 10 July 2003

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 28 December 2003

* Correspondence to: Heather K. Spence Laschinger, School of Nursing, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A5C1, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

While much of Kanter’s original work was based on participant observations, empirical studies have

found the expected relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction (e.g., Laschinger, Finegan,

Shamian, & Wilk, 2001b). The difficulty with much of this research is that it is cross-sectional and, of

course, it is difficult to make definitive cause-and-effect statements with this type of design. It is pos-

sible that empowerment leads to job satisfaction as expected, but it is also possible that people who

are satisfied with their job have a positive ‘glow’ about other aspects of their job, while those who are

dissatisfied might evaluate all other aspects negatively. Employees might respond to the questionnaire

items so that they ‘look good’ or, at the very least, appear consistent across measures. One way to

reduce the likelihood of these biases operating is to separate in time the measure of empowerment from

the measure of job satisfaction. The present study used this approach. We used measures of empower-

ment to predict job satisfaction 3 years later. We reasoned that if we could show a relationship between

these two measures, then this would provide strong support for the idea that empowerment is respon-

sible for subsequent job satisfaction. Before describing our study, we first review the theoretical frame-

work in which it is embedded.

Theoretical Framework

Kanter (1977, 1993) maintains that characteristics of a situation can either constrain or encourage opti-

mal job performance, regardless of personal tendencies or predispositions. She conceptualizes power

as the ‘ability to mobilize resources to get things done’ (Kanter, 1979, p. 210) and uses the analogy of

an electrical circuit to describe how productive power is achieved and maintained in the work setting.

Power is ‘on’ when employees have access to lines of information, support, resources, and opportu-

nities to learn and grow. When theses ‘lines’ or sources of power are unavailable, power is off and

effective work is impossible. These lines of power are sources of ‘structural’ empowerment within

the organization.

According to Kanter, these lines of power emanate from formal and informal systems within orga-

nizations. Jobs that are highly visible, permit discretion or flexibility in how work is accomplished, and

are central to the overall purpose of the organization, describe positions that are high in formal power.

When positive relationships among superiors, peers, and subordinates are encouraged, the resulting

alliances confer informal power. High levels of formal and informal power facilitate access to the lines

of power and opportunity that enable employees to accomplish their work in meaningful ways.

According to Kanter, the mandate of management should be to create conditions for work effective-

ness by ensuring employees have access to the information, support, and resources necessary to

accomplish work and that they are provided ongoing opportunities for development. Employees

who believe their work environment provides access to these factors are empowered. The focus of

Kanter’s theory is on the employees’ perception of the actual conditions in the work environment,

and not on how they interpret this information psychologically. This ‘structural’ empowerment

has been found to predict job satisfaction (Laschinger et al., 2001b), organizational commitment

(McDermott, Laschinger, & Shamian, 1996; Wilson & Laschinger, 1994), decision involvement

(Laschinger, Sabiston, & Kutzscher, 1997), trust in management (Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian,

2001a), and job stress (Hatcher & Laschinger, 1996; Laschinger et al., 2001b).

In contrast to Kanter’s focus on structural empowerment, Spreitzer (1995) has focused more on the

psychological state of the employees who experience empowerment (or not). Psychological empow-

erment has four components: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Meaning entails

congruence between an employee’s beliefs, values and behaviours, and job requirements. Competence

528 H. K. S. LASCHINGER ET AL.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 527–545 (2004)

refers to confidence in one’s job performance abilities. Self-determination refers to feelings of control

over one’s work. Impact is a sense of being able to influence important outcomes within the organiza-

tion. Researchers have linked psychological empowerment to a variety of outcomes, including orga-

nizational commitment (Kraimer, Siebert, & Liden, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995), job satisfaction, and job

strain (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997).

At first glance psychological and structural empowerment might seem quite similar. But there is an

important difference between the two. Whereas structural empowerment is the perception of the pre-

sence or absence of empowering conditions in the workplace, psychological empowerment is the

employees’ psychological interpretation or reaction to these conditions. In other words, psychological

empowerment represents a reaction of employees to structural empowerment conditions. A link

between structural and psychological empowerment was suggested by Spreitzer’s finding that man-

agers who felt they had access to strategic information in the organization and to information on their

units’ performance were psychologically empowered. Laschinger et al. (2001b) tested these ideas

directly and found evidence to suggest that psychological empowerment is an intervening variable

between structural empowerment and employee effectiveness (This study is discussed in more detail

below.). But because Laschinger et al.’s investigation was cross-sectional, it was impossible to make

definitive causal statements. As was mentioned earlier, a longitudinal study would provide a more

compelling demonstration that empowerment leads to job satisfaction. To do this, we returned to

the measures of empowerment gathered in the Laschinger et al. (2001b)1 study and used them to pre-

dict job satisfaction measured on the same cohort 3 years later. This cohort consisted of nurses, a group

of employees for whom empowerment is a particular relevant issue. Next, we review the empirical

work in this area and then introduce the cohort that was studied.

Empowerment in Nursing

Mishra and Spreitzer (1998) argue that empowerment is particularly important in work settings that

have experienced considerable downsizing. Employees who are not empowered cannot cope with

organizational changes and will, in all probability, respond passively. Indeed, the reaction of ‘down-

sizing survivors’ can have considerable impact on organizational outcomes (Burke, 2001; Davy,

Kinicki, & Scheck, 1991; Noer, 1993) and, negative reactions, in particular, may be responsible for

the failure of downsizing to improve productivity (Cascio, 1993).

One occupation that has been affected by drastic downsizing is nursing. For instance, a decade of

hospital restructuring initiatives in Canada has resulted in the lay-off of thousands of nurses. Survivors

of restructuring have faced increased responsibilities and fewer support staff to assist them. To add to

this stress, the patients they look after are sicker. Such arduous workloads can lead to exhaustion. In

addition, nurses report that their skills and abilities are not respected in the workplace. Consequently, it

is not surprising that Canadian nurses have become increasingly at risk for burnout, with many leaving

the profession all together (Baumann et al., 2001). The psychological state of those who survive

downsizing can determine the viability of the smaller workforce. Burke (2001) found that among

nurses who survived downsizing those who responded to downsizing with cynicism or fear were more

likely to report higher levels of emotional exhaustion, more psychosomatic symptoms, and greater job

dissatisfaction than other nurses.

1A simplified version of this paper entitled ‘Promoting nurses’ health: Effect of empowerment on job strain and worksatisfaction’ was published by Laschinger, Finegan, and Shamian (2001) Nursing Economics, 19, 42–52.

WORKPLACE EMPOWERMENT AND SATISFACTION 529


In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that many nurses are dissatisfied with their jobs,

and that the resulting consequences are significant. In a meta-analysis of over 500 studies of workers in

various industries and occupations, including nursing, Cass, Faragher, and Cooper (2003) found a

moderate positive correlation between job satisfaction and overall health, general mental health,

and self-esteem, and a negative correlation between depression, anxiety, and burnout. Job satisfaction

has also been linked to turnover. In a longitudinal study of over 1000 nurses, Price and Mueller (1981)

found that although job satisfaction did not directly impact turnover, it influenced employees’ intention

to stay, which, in turn, predicted turnover. This pattern of results is also found in the general manage-

ment literature (cf. Spector, 1997). In separate meta-analyses, Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner (2000) and

Hellman (1997) also found that job dissatisfaction was a consistent predictor of voluntary turnover

behavior. Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002), in a meta-analysis of 42 studies, found that employee

satisfaction not only predicted employee turnover, but also had an impact on unit performance and

profitability. Of course, even though job satisfaction is linked to turnover, there are several other steps

nurses may go through between experiencing job satisfaction and leaving the job (Price & Mueller,

1981). Prestholdt, Lane, and Matthews (1987), for instance, found that nurses’ turnover intentions

were directly predicted by their attitudes towards leaving or staying, the expectations of others, and

their feelings of moral obligation.

Given the negative impact of job dissatisfaction on both the employee and the organization,

empowerment may be one way of preventing job dissatisfaction and its corresponding negative

effects. Certainly, there is evidence to suggest that empowerment improves job satisfaction. Blegen

(1993) and Irvine and Evans (1995), in separate meta-analyses, found that nurses’ job satisfaction

was consistently predicted by autonomy, good communication with supervisors and peers, and job

stress. Of course, autonomy and good communication are consistent with Kanter’s conception of

structural empowerment. Aiken and her colleagues (2001, 2002) also found other evidence con-

sistent with Kanter’s theory. They studied hospitals that are able to attract and retain nurses despite

challenging economic conditions (i.e., magnet hospitals). The nurses that worked in these hospitals

were involved in decisions that affected them, had more autonomy and control over their practice,

and enjoyed better relationships with physicians. These organizational characteristics are remark-

ably consistent with the empowering environment described by Kanter (1977). Indeed, nurses

working in magnet hospitals were more satisfied with their jobs, and experienced less burnout than

nurses working in other contexts (Aiken et al., 2002; McClure, Poulin, Sovie, & Wandelt, 1983;

Upenieks, 2003).

Collectively, these studies suggest that nursing is an excellent venue to study the effects of psycho-

logical and structural empowerment on job satisfaction. If structural empowerment does affect subse-

quent job satisfaction, then Kanter’s theory would offer considerable practical advice for improving

the working conditions in nursing that is both theoretically and empirically based.

Model to be Tested

Laschinger et al.’s (2001b) cross-sectional study examined relationships between structural empow-

erment, psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction in nurses. They found that structural

empowerment affected job satisfaction in two ways. First, structural empowerment directly pre-

dicted job satisfaction, and second, the relationship between structural empowerment and job

satisfaction was mediated by psychological empowerment. However, this cross-sectional snapshot

of relationships among variables may not be representative of nurses’ feelings about their work



over time. Longitudinal studies are in a better position to make causal statements and provide a

stronger test of the hypothesized relationships. Although longitudinal studies should mirror the

results of cross-sectional work, this is not always the case. For instance, Curry, Wakefield, Price,

and Mueller (1986) used a longitudinal design to examine the casual ordering of job satisfaction

and organizational commitment in a sample of staff nurses. Interestingly, and contrary to many

previous studies, they failed to find any relationship between job satisfaction and commitment.

Indeed, they recommended longitudinal research as a way to validate findings from cross-sectional

studies.

Laschinger et al. (2001b) sampled Canadian nurses in 1998. Three years later, we contacted these

same nurses to reassess their feelings of job satisfaction and empowerment. Based on both theoretical

grounds and the original empirical findings, we hypothesized that changes in employee perceptions of

structural empowerment would influence changes in satisfaction both directly and indirectly. The

direct effects of structural empowerment on job satisfaction, we predicted, would arise because nurses

who became more structurally empowered would gain more access to resources and support necessary

to accomplish their work and would thus report greater increases in job satisfaction. Conversely, nurses

who did not have the necessary support and resources to perform their job effectively would become

more dissatisfied with their job over time. The indirect effects of structural empowerment on changes

in job satisfaction would arise through the mediating role of psychological empowerment. That is, we

expected that increases in structural empowerment would enhance feelings of psychological empow-

erment, which in turn would increase job satisfaction.

Organizational Context

The timeframe of this study coincided with a hospital-restructuring initiative in the Canadian pro-

vince of Ontario in the 1990s. All urban teaching hospitals were affected by this effort. Many nurses

were laid off and many full-time jobs were converted to part-time to cut costs. From 1994 to 1999,

the number of employed nurses in Ontario declined by 9.4 per cent or 8346 nurses (Dussault et al.,

2001). At the same time, hospitals reduced patient length of stay, which meant that patients on hos-

pital units were acutely ill and required considerable nursing resources. The combination of sicker

patients and fewer nurses to provide care resulted in greatly increased nursing workloads and cre-

ated an environment of mistrust and demoralization among nursing staff. Many nurses left the pro-

fession and fewer students entered nursing programs. Illness-related absenteeism of nurses far

exceeded any other occupational group (National Labor Force Survey: Statistics Canada, 2000).

Nurses in this study were randomly selected from a list of all nurses who worked in acute-care

teaching hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada. The nurses were first contacted in late 1998.

At this time, nurses had suffered numerous rounds of lay-offs. Moreover, the number of managers

was significantly reduced. This situation resulted in a loss of managerial support for nurses who now

worked in larger units with less visible leadership. For some nurses, these circumstances represented

an opportunity to be more autonomous and to have more control over their work. For others, the loss

of managerial support may have been overwhelming. The nurses were contacted again in 2001, at

which point most of the nursing workforce downsizing was over and hospitals were beginning to

advertise available nursing positions. We were interested in examining how changes in nurses’ per-

ceptions of their work environment influenced their job satisfaction across this time frame.



Method

Sample

The original sampling frame consisted of 600 nurses randomly selected from the College of Nurses of

Ontario registry list. These staff nurses worked in urban teaching hospitals across the province in 1998.

Respondents were surveyed again in early 2001. To maximize the return rate, strategies suggested by

Dillman (2000) were used on both occasions. A reminder letter was sent 3 weeks after the first mailing

and a second questionnaire mailed 3 weeks later. Participants were reimbursed for their time to com-

plete the lengthy questionnaire with a food voucher to a popular coffee shop.

Of the 600 questionnaires sent in the first wave, 412 useable questionnaires (73 per cent) were

returned. In the second wave, 268 nurses returned questionnaires (65 per cent return). Because AMOS

requires that there be no missing data, cases were also lost because respondents failed to complete all

items. These missing data appeared to be randomly distributed across items and timeframes. In the

end, the final matched sample with complete data for the analysis was 185 (45 per cent of the Time

1 sample). Although the sample is smaller than the original, it is still powerful enough to test the pro-

posed model (Hoyle, 1995). Attrition in longitudinal studies is a common problem, with 30–50 per

cent dropout rates and higher (Visser, 1982). Fortunately, there were no significant differences between

those who responded to both surveys and those who were lost to follow-up on either the demographic

characteristics or major study variables collected at Time 1. Specifically, we compared the two groups

with respect to possible differences in age, years of experience in nursing and years on the current unit,

six types of structural empowerment, four types of psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction.

None of these 14 comparisons were significant.

The final sample consisted of nurses who worked in a variety of different speciality areas including

medical–surgical (27.3 per cent), critical care (37.6 per cent), maternal child (12.7 per cent), and psy-

chiatry (22.4 per cent) from across the province of Ontario. We inferred that none of the nurses chan-

ged hospitals or clinical areas because all nurses reported over 3 years’ experience on their present

unit. Not surprisingly, with restructuring, there were few job openings available to these nurses. Nurses

worked either full-time (64.7 per cent) or part-time (35.3 per cent). Twenty-one per cent of the respon-

dents had baccalaureate educational preparation; most were diploma-prepared (78.7 per cent). Respon-

dents were, on average, 43 years old, with 19 years of nursing experience and 10 years experience in

their current workplace.

Questionnaires

Three self-report scales were used in this study: the Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire-II

(CWEQ) (Laschinger, Finegan, Wilk, & Shamian, 2000), Spreitzer’s (1995) Psychological Empower-

ment Scale, and a Global Job Satisfaction Scale (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). The items for each ques-

tionnaire were rated on a five-point Likert scale. All scales had acceptable internal consistency with

reliabilities ranging from 0.77 to 0.91 (See Table 1). Respondents were also asked to provide their

gender, age, years of nursing experience, years on current unit, their specialty area, educational back-

ground, and whether they worked full-time or part-time.

The Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire-II (CWEQ)Based on the conceptual definitions described in Kanter’s theory, an overall construct for structural

empowerment was derived from measures of the following six components: formal power, informal



power, and perceived access to the work empowerment structures of opportunity, information, support

and resources. These components have been measured in past research with the CWEQ (four empow-

erment structures), the Job Activites Scale (formal power), and the Organizational Relationship Scale

(informal power) (Laschinger, 1996a, 1996b). Although the original scales were longer in length, a

confirmatory factor analysis suggested that three items per subscale were sufficient to capture ade-

quately the overall construct of empowerment (�2¼ 279, d.f.¼ 129, CFI¼ 0.992, IFI¼ 0.992,

RMSEA¼ 0.054) (Laschinger et al., 2000). Each item loaded appropriately on the theoretically rele-

vant factors, and all strongly correlated with a measure of global empowerment providing evidence of

construct validity.

In the CWEQ-II, respondents are asked to rate each item as to how characteristic it was of their job

on a scale from (1) not at all to (5) a lot, with higher scores indicating greater perceived workplace

empowerment. For example, to measure access to opportunity, respondents were asked to rate the

degree to which their present job gave them the opportunity to perform challenging work, to gain

new knowledge and skills, and to use their knowledge and skills.

The longer versions of these scales have been used in previous studies and found to be reliable

(Laschinger, 1996a). As Table 1 shows, the shorter scales were also found to be reliable in the present

study. Previous research also suggests that these subscales can discriminate meaningfully among

incumbents in various levels of the organizational hierarchy. For instance, senior administrators and

physicians scored higher than middle managers who, in turn, scored higher than staff professionals

(Laschinger, 1996b; Kutszcher, Sabiston, Laschinger, & Nish, 1997).

Psychological empowermentSpreitzer’s (1995) 12-item Psychological Empowerment Scale was used to measure the four components

of psychological empowerment construct: meaningful work, competence, autonomy, and impact. Each

component is measured by three rates rated on 5-point Likert scales. As Table 1 shows, the reliabilities of

these subscales were high (between 0.85 and 0.91). Spreitzer (1995) found evidence of convergent and

divergent validity for these subscales in a study of managers and non-management personnel. Laschinger

et al. (2000) further validated the proposed factor structure in a confirmatory factor analysis.

Work satisfaction

Finally, a 4-item global measure of work satisfaction modified from Hackman and Oldham’s (1975)

Job Diagnostic Survey was used. Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they were with their job

and their coworkers. A confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the items provided a good fit to the

Table 1. Time 1 and Time 2 Cronbach alpha reliability estimates

Scale Time 1 Time 2

Structural empowerment 0.77 0.82Opportunity 0.79 0.79Information 0.81 0.87Support 0.77 0.79Resources 0.78 0.79Formal Power (JAS) 0.66 0.77Informal Power (ORS) 0.60 0.68

Psychological empowerment 0.87 0.89Meaning 0.94 0.94Confidence 0.85 0.87Autonomy 0.86 0.87Impact 0.92 0.91

Satisfaction 0.78 0.84



hypothesized factor structure (�2¼ 8.17, d.f.¼ 2, CFI¼ 0.987, IFI¼ 0.987, RMSEA¼ 0.091)

(Laschinger et al., 2000). Consistent with the reliability estimates found in previous studies

(Laschinger et al., 2000), the internal consistency of this scale was 0.78 at Time 1 and 0.84 at Time 2.

Data analysis

The hypothesized model was analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) (Arbuckle, 1997).

SEM procedures permit modeling of a set of relations among constructs, simultaneous estimation of all

hypothesized paths, and estimation of indirect or mediating effects. Unlike multiple regression or

ANOVA, the SEM approach explicitly acknowledges the presence of measurement error and provides

a means of controlling for it (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Hoyle & Smith, 1994).

Several criteria recommended by Hoyle (1995) were used to evaluate fit of the model. These

included omnibus fit indices such as the �2 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989) and incremental fit indices

such as the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (Bentler, 1988), and the Incremental Fit Index (IFI) (Bollen,

1989). The �2 is interpreted as the test of the difference between the hypothesized model and the just

identified version of the model, with smaller values indicating better fit (Hoyle, 1995). Thus, low non-

significant values are desired (Kline, 1998). However, the �2 is very sensitive to sample size; thus, in a

model with a relatively large sample size, the null hypothesis is expected to be rejected almost all of

the time. Because of this limitation, the �2 was used only to evaluate the relative differences in fit

among competing models. Incremental fit indices indicate the proportion of improvement of the

hypothesized model relative to a null model, typically one assuming no correlation among observed

variables. The generally agreed upon critical value for the CFI and IFI is 0.90 or higher (Kline, 1998).

Modification indices are computed for each parameter that is constrained to zero within the model.

This index ‘approximates the amount by which the model’s overall �2 would decrease if a particular

parameter were freely estimated’ (Kline, 1998, p. 134). However, consideration of whether or not to

add a path suggested by these indices should be made on theoretical, not empirical grounds.

Results

Testing the model

The model proposed in this study was tested using SEM for longitudinal analysis with maximum like-

lihood estimation. We used the 2-wave-covariable SEM analytic approach described by Ecob (1987)

and Plewis (1985) to test our hypothesized model of changes in study variables over time. This

approach estimates the degree of interrelatedness between changes in one latent variable on another,

with both having been repeatedly measured on the same individuals (Raykov, 1993, p. 357). It is a

dynamic-change model, which reflects a general process, in which causal influences and resulting

adjustments are continuous in time (Rogosa, 1979, p. 276).

Prior to testing the hypothesized model, we examined whether demographic variables had any

apparent impact on structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction. To

do this, we correlated age, years of experience, and unit tenure with these study variables. The only

significant relationship found was between job satisfaction and unit tenure (r¼ 0.16). Using t-tests, we

then compared males to females, and full-time workers with part-time workers to see if they differed

on any of the independent and dependent variables. They did not. Finally, we compared the responses

of individuals from different speciality areas (e.g., critical care, surgery) using analysis of variance.



Once again, we did not find any differences across areas. Since there was no evidence to suggest that

these variables influenced our major variables (with the exception of tenure), we did not include them

as factors in subsequent analyses. (We will return to unit tenure at the end of the result section.)

Stability of the measurement model

Factor scores were created for the sub-components of structural and psychological empowerment.

Thus, the latent variable of Structural Empowerment had six indicators (opportunity, information,

support, resources, informal, power and formal power); and the latent variable of Psychological

Empowerment had four indicators (meaning, confidence, autonomy, impact). Job satisfaction had four

indicators. Results for the unconstrained measurement model are presented in Table 2. This table also

Table 2. Unconstrained measurement model

Constructs/indicators Mean SD Unstandardized SE Standardized R2

loadings loadings

Structural Empowerment–Time 1Opportunity-1 11.09 2.45 0.788 0.148 0.546 0.298Information-1 7.34 2.47 0.528 0.131 0.365 0.133Support-1 7.67 2.40 1.00 — 0.709 0.502Resources-1 8.77 2.27 0.475 0.113 0.349 0.122Formal Power-1 7.16 2.09 0.741 0.123 0.602 0.363Informal Power-1 11.46 2.12 0.483 0.119 0.387 0.150

Structural Empowerment–Time 2Opportunity-2 11.31 2.31 0.685 0.108 0.535 0.286Information-2 7.99 2.80 0.863 0.132 0.535 0.286Support-2 7.67 2.54 1.00 — 0.704 0.495Resources-2 8.55 2.49 0.618 0.107 0.459 0.210Formal Power-2 7.26 2.67 1.19 0.136 0.797 0.636Informal Power-2 11.07 2.38 0.731 0.113 0.549 0.301

Psychological Empowerment–Time 1Meaning-1 12.34 2.30 1.55 0.378 0.721 0.520Confidence-1 13.13 1.76 1.18 0.301 0.733 0.537Autonomy-1 10.63 2.53 1.33 0.307 0.572 0.327Impact-1 6.90 2.81 1.00 — 0.387 0.150

Psychological Empowerment–Time 2Meaning-2 12.83 2.39 0.863 0.151 0.565 0.386Confidence-2 13.39 1.75 0.714 0.126 0.697 0.486Autonomy-2 11.10 2.57 0.997 0.160 0.675 0.456Impact-2 8.67 3.06 1.00 — 0.565 0.320

Work Satisfaction–Time 1Very satisfied with job-1 3.20 1.07 0.873 0.098 0.781 0.610Co-workers satisfied-1 2.61 0.92 0.571 0.083 0.600 0.360Happy to retire here-1 3.03 1.32 1.00 — 0.735 0.541Work-environment supportive-1 2.28 0.97 0.643 0.080 0.645 0.417

Work Satisfaction–Time 2Very satisfied with job-2 3.36 1.13 0.928 0.078 0.849 0.722Co-workers satisfied-2 2.70 1.00 0.713 0.071 0.733 0.538Happy to retire here-2 3.06 1.29 1.00 — 0.787 0.619Work-environment supportive-2 2.48 1.06 0.726 0.073 0.701 0.492



includes the means and standard deviations of the items associated with each latent variable. (The cor-

relation matrix is available upon request from the authors).

Next, we examined the across-time stability of the measurement instruments for structural and psy-

chological empowerment and job satisfaction. To achieve this objective, across-occasion measurement

models were constructed in which the latent variables for Time 1 were hypothesized to cause their

respective latent variable at Time 2, i.e., Structural Empowerment–Time 1 (SE-1) causes Structural

Empowerment–Time 2 (SE-2), Psychological Empowerment–Time 1 (PE-1) causes Psychological

Empowerment–-Time 2(PE-2), and Job Satisfaction–Time 1 (JS-1) causes Job Satisfaction–Time 2

(JS-2). For each of the three latent variables in the study, the measurement errors for the corresponding

manifest variables were allowed to co-vary over occasions. Empirically, this has been found to be a

common feature of such models and probably arises from the fact that each indicator has some indi-

cator-specific variation as well as measurement error (Ecob, 1987). This assumption was confirmed by

comparing the fit of the model with correlated error terms to the more restricted model in which the

measurement errors of the manifest variables were independent across occasions. The results of this

analysis are presented in part A of Table 3.

In determining whether the measurement process remained constant over time, the factor loadings

of the manifest variables for the corresponding latent variables were fixed to be invariant across time.

The observed difference in the �2 statistic between the model with unconstrained factor loadings and

the model with constrained loadings was used to test the validity of this assumption (see Part B,

Table 3). When the factor loadings of the manifest variables for the corresponding latent variables were

fixed to be invariant across time and compared to a model with unconstrained factor loadings, the

observed difference in the �2 statistic between the two models was statistically significant for struc-

tural empowerment (��2¼ 14.685; �d.f.¼ 5). However, the difference was not substantial. More-

over, there were no significant differences for psychological empowerment and job satisfaction,

indicating that the measurement properties of the latent variables were the same for both occasions.

These results suggested that the measurement models for each of these variables were the same across

occasions and justified proceeding to the next stage of the analysis.

Changes in structural and psychological empowerment and job satisfaction

We conducted a means analysis of the latent variables to examine changes across the two time

periods. There were slight increases in average levels of psychological empowerment and job

Table 3. Examination of the cross-time stability of the measurement model

A. Difference between correlated and uncorrelated errors in measurement models

Latent variableStructural empowerment ��2¼ 120.034 (�d.f.¼ 6)Psychological empowerment ��2¼ 72.555 (�d.f.¼ 4)Job satisfaction ��2¼ 58.175 (�d.f.¼ 4)

B. Difference between constrained and unconstrained models

Latent variableStructural empowerment ��2¼ 14.685 (�d.f.¼ 5)Psychological empowerment ��2¼ 6.058 (�d.f.¼ 3)Job satisfaction ��2¼ 2.189 (�d.f.¼ 3)



satisfaction. The level of psychological empowerment increased by 0.84 (measured on a 12-point

scale; t¼ 5.17) and the level of job satisfaction increased by 0.153 (measured on a 5-point scale;

t¼ 1.98). However, the average level of structural empowerment was essentially the same across both

occasions (the difference of 0.06 on an 18-point scale; t¼ 0.418). To examine the effects of each of

the T1 variables on their respective T2 referents, three stability models were tested. The squared mul-

tiple correlation (R2) for the latent variables SE-T2, PE-T2, and JS-T2 were 0.23, 0.46, and 0.30,

respectively. This suggests that a substantial portion of these nurses individually experienced changes

in these variables across time, particularly for structural empowerment and job satisfaction, even

though as a group, the pattern of responses was similar over time. Had these parameters been closer

to 1.0, the interpretation would be that there were fewer intra-individual changes in the study vari-

ables across time.

Effect of empowerment on job satisfaction

A structural equation model was constructed to assess the influence of changes in structural and psy-

chological empowerment on changes in job satisfaction over time using the approach described by

Ecob (1987). In this model, structural and psychological empowerment and job satisfaction at Time

1 are hypothesized to cause their respective referents at Time 2. That is, to estimate the independent

effect of changes in structural and psychological empowerment on changes in job satisfaction, Time 1

variables were entered into the model. The exogenous variables (Time 1 variables) were hypothesized

to correlate freely among themselves and, following Ecob, were expected to have effects on each of the

Time 2 variables. This approach is similar to examining relationships among difference scores (delta)

using ordinary least square regression (OLS). That said, the advantage of the current approach is the

ability to account for all information in the scale indicators of the latent variables, correlated errors

across time, and measurement error. Consequently, the estimates are not biased, as they would be

in OLS regression.

The initial analysis revealed a good fit of the hypothesized model for the data according to standards

recommended by Bentler and Bonett (1980) and Browne and Cudeck (1989) (R2¼ 0.616,

�2¼ 667.455, d.f.¼ 342, IFI¼ 0.979, CFI¼ 0.979, RMSEA¼ 0.072). The model accounted ade-

quately for the observed co-variances among the manifest variables. The standardized regression coef-

ficients for the structural component of the model are shown in the boxed section of Figure 1. This part

of the figure is used to remind the reader that what is being analyzed is actually the pattern of relation-

ships among changes in the major study variables across time through the analysis of relationships as

drawn on the left side of the figure (following Ecob, 1987).

The results reveal that changes in perceptions of structural empowerment produced statistically sig-

nificant changes in psychological empowerment (�¼ 0.38) and job satisfaction (�¼ 0.70). However, a

change in psychological empowerment did not result in a significant change in job satisfaction over

and above that accounted for by structural empowerment (�¼�0.08). That is, the hypothesized direct

effect was supported but the indirect effect was not.

The R2 for the latent variable JS-T2 (0.666) represents an increase of 36.6 per cent (from 0.300 to

0.666) over that of the previous stability model for JS-T2 (in which JS-T1 was the only predictor of JS-

T2). That is, when the effects of structural and psychological empowerment (Time 1 and Time 2) were

added to the stability model for JS-T2, the variance explained more than doubled. These results sug-

gest that variation in job satisfaction (Time 2) depends more on changes in the level of structural

empowerment than on the level of job satisfaction that was observed at Time 1. That is, creating envir-

onments that provide access to information, support, resources and opportunities to learn and grow

over time has an important effect on nurses’ satisfaction with their jobs.



Because tenure had a very small but significant relationship with job satisfaction, the model was rerun

including tenure has a control variable. The addition of this variable did not alter the model at all.

Discussion

The results of this study support the proposition that changes in perceptions of access to structural

empowerment have an impact on changes in both psychological empowerment and job satisfaction

over time. More specifically, staff nurses in this study felt that changes in access to structural empow-

erment strongly affected their feelings of psychological empowerment and satisfaction with their job

across a 3-year time frame. Because the data were collected over time, these results strengthen pre-

vious cross-sectional research that has linked structural empowerment to job satisfaction. Lieberson

(1985) maintains that in the absence of experimentation, ‘longitudinal data provide the only fully

appropriate test of a causal proposition’s validity’ (p. 180).

Surprisingly, however, we found no support for our second hypothesis. Unlike the analysis of only

the Time 1 data (i.e., Laschinger et al., 2001b), the present longitudinal analyses did not find that

Figure 1. Longitudinal change model 1998–2001



changes in psychological empowerment predicted changes in job satisfaction. Instead, we found that

the link between the two variables was not significant and, accordingly, psychological empowerment

could not mediate the relationship between structural empowerment and job satisfaction. It is interest-

ing to speculate why the results of the cross-sectional analysis and longitudinal analyses are different.

Podsakoff and Organ (1986) argue that longitudinal studies reduce the likelihood of method variance

from operating. (We will return to the discussion of method variance below.) Perhaps the previous ana-

lysis looking at only Time 1 data (i.e., Laschinger et al., 2001b) found evidence of mediation was

because the correlation between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction was inflated due

to common method variance. In fact, it is plausible that general affective feelings at Time 1 may have

influenced nurses’ responses at that moment in time. This underscores the importance of longitudinal

research. Since we were looking at change scores over a 3-year period, it is difficult to argue that

momentary affective disposition that might have influenced the completion of the first questionnaire

continued to exert an effect 3 years later.

That said, perhaps people have dispositional tendencies to respond in a particular way to work that

are stable over time. For instance, there is evidence to suggest that there are dispositional sources of job

satisfaction (Staw & Ross, 1985; Judge & Bono, 2001). Perhaps people tend to view work similarly,

regardless of circumstances and the passage of time. Indeed, Staw and Ross (1985) found a small but

significant correlation between reports of job satisfaction over time even when the people had changed

jobs and organizations. Consequently, can our results be explained through this mechanism? It is

important to remember that we looked at change scores. Thus, we expect that scores will go up or

down depending on nurses’ empowerment scores. While dispositional sources may play some role

in our findings, it is unlikely that they can account for our pattern of results. Indeed, Steel and Rentsch

(1997) and Gerhart (1987) found that situational variables explained additional variance in job satis-

faction above that accounted for by dispositions.

Future Directions

The fact that changes in structural empowerment directly affected job satisfaction underscores the

importance of studying structural empowerment. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, research using

Kanter’s model has been tested primarily within nursing. Kanter would argue that structural empow-

erment should help all groups. After all, both management and first-line workers need resources to

do their work and would benefit from being kept ‘in the loop’ about organizational issues. But will

our findings generalize to other occupational groups? Nurses are a dedicated group of professionals.

When interviewed, they repeatedly stress how important it is to them to give their patients the best

care possible. In other words, most are motivated to do their job well. Having access to opportunity,

resources, and information is critical to being effective on the job and so it is not surprising that

job satisfaction improves when the job is successfully completed. However, not all other groups

are as motivated. In fact, a chronic problem with workers doing routine jobs (e.g., factory workers)

is how to motivate them. Would giving them access to resources, opportunity, and information be

reflected in enhanced job performance if the worker was not motivated to perform well in the first

place? Future research could explore the role motivation plays and compare the effectiveness of

empowerment with individuals who want to do their job well and those who do not care. If

it turns out that empowerment works across all jobs, as Kanter would expect, then it could be an

effective strategy for ensuring that workers, whose jobs are routine but nonetheless important, work

effectively.



More generally, is empowerment desirable for all occupational groups? In some jobs employees are

expected to follow orders. For example, soldiers are trained to follow orders; the cost of a soldier acting

independently of his or her superiors, especially during wartime, could be devastating. Similarly, a bus

driver is expected to take passengers to the agreed upon destination, and a civil servant is expected to

‘follow the rules’ mandated by their government. Still, the worker within each of these groups is more

likely to be satisfied with the job if he or she has the resources to do the job, is recognized for his/her

work, and has support to take the initiative to solve problems. In short, access to empowerment struc-

tures could improve job satisfaction. Yet, job satisfaction, although important, is not the only variable

to consider. Does job effectiveness improve with increases in empowerment? Certainly, at the indivi-

dual level it seems to. People who perceive they are empowered also perceive that they are better at

their jobs (e.g., Laschinger & Wong, 1999). To return to our earlier examples, an empowered bus dri-

ver, civil servant, or soldier would feel that they were performing their job more effectively if they

were able to use their own judgment when circumstances warranted it. But although the individual

may see empowerment as enhancing job performance, is this perception shared by their supervisors?

Lemieux-Charles et al. (2002) found that, although team members thought that quality improvement

practices improved their team’s effectiveness, their managers did not share this perception. Thus,

another direction for future research is to explore the effect of empowerment at the group level. Unfor-

tunately, we could not look at the data at this level in our study since it was not possible to identify the

particular hospital respondents were working in.

Many of the strategies used to increase empowerment are ultimately controlled by supervisors.

Arguably, they are the ones who give the workers access to resources, opportunity, and information.

They can provide formal power and they are part of the network of informal power. Will they impart

empowerment to all their employees or are they likely to empower only their competent workers? In

other words, is it the case that empowerment still works when skill level is controlled for? Kanter

argues that incompetence can be traced to being denied power in the past. Powerlessness, not incom-

petence, is responsible for the inability of employees to do their jobs. If one’s actions have no effect on

the working environment, then one quickly learns that there is no point in doing anything but the bare

minimum. Although theoretically these ideas make sense, few, if any studies, have looked at the suc-

cess of strategies designed to increase empowerment in workers whose performance is marginal.

An individual-difference variable that is arguably similar to powerlessness is locus of control

(Rotter, 1966). A person who has an internal locus of control is one who, by definition, believes that

his or her actions influences the rewards he or she receives. It is likely that such a person will seek out

access to empowerment and, if denied access to empowerment, would first work to change the situa-

tion, and failing that might consider quitting. In contrast, those with external locus of control see fate

and luck as influencing their outcomes. Since the usual state of affairs is a lack of empowerment, they

are unlikely to be disturbed by not having empowerment. We would speculate that, when their envir-

onment is empowering, these individuals initially might have difficulty responding to these new con-

ditions of work, but their performance would be enhanced over time. Other individual-difference

variables that might also influence both the access to and the impact of empowerment, albeit in oppo-

site ways, are authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) and the need

for achievement (McClelland, 1985).

Finally, Spreitzer et al. (1997) has demonstrated that the different components of psychological

empowerment are related to different outcomes. On a related note, not all aspects of structural empow-

erment may be important for all jobs or all people. Informal power, for example, may not be something

that is valued or needed by introverts. Similarly, a novelist may not find access to resources as impor-

tant to his or her empowerment as a nurse who needs to have resources to actually accomplish their

work. Certainly, there are many avenues that could be explored in determining the boundary conditions

for structural empowerment.



Limitations

The findings of this study must be viewed with caution given the problems associated with longitudinal

designs, such as loss to follow-up and history effects (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Although the

sample was representative of nurses in Ontario with respect to age, experience and level of education,

the final sample was considerably smaller than the original. Nonetheless, nurses in the final sample did

not differ significantly from those in the original sample on any substantive or demographic variables.

Unfortunately, we could not compare our sample with those who chose not to participate. Although

most of the nurses in the final sample had not changed their work unit over the three-year period of the

study, it is possible that unmeasured factors in their environment may have influenced their job satis-

faction. That said, although the first wave of the study was conducted at a point in time when hospital

downsizing had peaked in the province (1998), the second wave of data was collected following a per-

iod of relative stability with regard to restructuring initiatives.

Second, as is the case in all studies in which the same subject completes all instruments, method

variance is a concern. Still, Podsakoff and Organ (1986) argue that collecting data at different points in

time lessens the impact of method variance. Moreover, Spector (1987) points out that method variance

may be more of a problem with single-item or poorly designed scales and less of a problem when well-

designed multi-item validated scales are used. Given the demonstrated reliability and validity of the

measures used in our study, problems with common method variance should be attenuated to some

extent. In addition, it seems reasonable to believe that employees’ own perceptions of empowerment

and job satisfaction are valid indicators of their experiences of their work environment and their reac-

tions to these perceptions. Other researchers agree that self-report measures are, in some cases, more

accurate descriptions than more objective measures (Howard et al., 1980). That said, future studies are

needed to develop more objective measures of structural empowerment.

Conclusions

Ironically, although the nursing profession was facing downsizing when this study was first started, it is

now experiencing a serious nursing shortage across North America (O’Brien-Pallas et al., 1998;

Sochalski, 2001). According to the Canadian Nurses’ Association, Canada could suffer a shortage

of 113 000 nurses by the year 2011 (Ryten, 1997). Given that fewer people are choosing nursing as

a career and that the current nursing workforce is aging (Canadian Institute for Health Information,

2000), it is important to find ways to retain and recruit nurses. The findings from our study suggest that

empowerment will have an important role to play, given its part in enhancing job satisfaction. Ideally,

we would like to see more quasi-experimental studies conducted to show that changing working con-

ditions as Kanter recommends produces changes job satisfaction, and in turn we need to show directly

that perceptions of empowerment are responsible for actual turnover and retention, and impact on pro-

ductivity. As well, the viability of Kanter’s theory to other occupational groups needs to be established.

In short, Kanter’s theory provides an exciting research venue to explore the effects of empowerment on

workers and their organizations.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Extra-

mural Grants Program Grants #410-99-0377.



Author biographies

Heather K. Spence Laschinger is Professor and Associate Director Nursing Research in the Univer-

sity of Western Ontario School of Nursing. Her research interests include workplace empowerment in

nursing and the impact of work conditions on nurses’ work attitudes and behaviors.

Joan E. Finegan received her PhD, in Social and Personality Psychology from the University of Wes-

tern Ontario where she is currently an Associate Professor. Her research interests include person–orga-

nization fit, values, and empowerment. She is on the editorial board of the Journal of Business Ethics.

Judith Shamian is Executive Director in the Office of Nursing Policy at Health Canada. She is the

most senior policy maker in Nursing in the federal government. Her research interests include policy

relevant research related to advancing professional nursing practice in health care settings.

Piotr Wilk is a doctoral candidate in Sociology at the University of Western Ontario who has an exten-

sive expertise in advanced statistical modeling techniques. He has participated in several studies of

nursing work environments in the past 10 years.

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality.New York: Harper & Row.

Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Sochalski, J. A., Busse, R., Clarke, H., Giovannetti, P., Hunt, J., Rafferty,A. M., & Shamian, J. (2001). Nurses’ reports on hospital care in five countries. Health Affairs, 20(3), 43–53.

Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Sochalski, J., & Silber, J. H. (2002). Hospital nurse staffing andpatient mortality, nurse burnout, and job dissatisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(16),1987–1993.

Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos user’s guide, version 3.6. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51(6), 1173–1182.

Baumann, A., O’Brien-Pallas, L., Armstrong-Stassen, M., Blythe, J., Bourbonnais, R., Cameron, S., Irvine Doran,D., Kerr, M., McGillis Hall, L., Vezina, M., Butt, M., & Ryan, L. (2001). Commitment and care: The benefits ofa healthy workplace for nurses, their patients and the system. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services ResearchFoundation.

Bentler, P. (1988). Causal modeling via structural equation systems. In J. Nesselroade, & R. Cattell(Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology: Perspectives on individual differences (2nd edn,pp. 317–335). New York: Plenum.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariancestructures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Blegen, M. A. (1993). Nurses’ job satisfaction: a meta-analysis of related variables. Nursing Research, 42(1),36–41.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24(4), 445–455.Burke, R. (2001). Nursing staff survivor responses to hospital restructuring and downsizing. Stress and Health, 17,

195–205.Canadian Institute for Health Information. (2000). Supply and distribution of registered nurses in Canada. Ottawa:

Canadian Institute for Health Information.Carpentier, M., & Grossman, M. (2001). The nursing labour market in Canada: Review of the literature.

University of Montreal, Montreal: National Library of Quebec.Cascio, W. (1993). Downsizing: what do we know? What have we learned? The Executive, 7(1), 95–105.



Cass, M., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Workplace stressors: A review of the reviews. Paper presentation atAPA/NIOSH Work, Stress, & Health Conference: New challenges in a changing workplace, March, Toronto,Canada.

Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction andorganizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 847–858.

Davy, J., Kinicki, A., & Scheck, C. (1991). Developing and testing a model of survivor responses to layoffs.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38(3), 302–317.

Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.Dussault, G., Fournier, M. A., Zanchetta, M. S., Kerouac, S., Denis, J. L., Bojanowski, L., Carpentier, M., &

Grossman, M. (2001). The nursing labor market in Canada: Review of the literature. GRIS-Universite duMontrea: Montreal, Canada.

Ecob, R. (1987). Applications of structural equation modeling to longitudinal educational data. In P. Cuttance, &R. Ecob (Eds.), Structural modeling by example: Applications in educational, sociological, and behavioralresearch (pp. 138–159). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gerhart, B. A. (1987). How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction? Implicationsfor job design and other personnel programs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 366–373.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employeeturnover: update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management,26(3), 463–488.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 60, 159–170.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employeesatisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,87(2), 268–279.

Hatcher, S., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (1996). Staff nurses’ perceptions of job empowerment and level of burnout: atest of Kanter’s theory of structural power in organizations. Canadian Journal of Nursing Administration, 9(2),74–94.

Hellman, C. M. (1997). Job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(6), 677–689.Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: a

conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 429–440.Howard, G. S., Maxwell, S. E., Wiener, R. L., Boynton, K. S., & Rooney, W. M. (1980). Is a behavioral measure

the best estimate of behavioral parameters? Perhaps not. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 291–311.Irvine, D. M., & Evans, M. G. (1995). Job satisfaction and turnover among nurses: integrating research findings

across studies. Nursing Research, 44(4), 246–253.Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: User’s reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits—self-esteem, generalized self-

efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57(4), 65–75.Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation (2nd edn). New York: Basic Books.Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Press.Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional

construct: a test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(5), 54–64.Kutszcher, L., Sabiston, J. A., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Nish, M. (1997). The effects of teamwork on staff

perception of empowerment and job satisfaction. Health Care Management Forum, 10(2), 12–17.Laschinger, H. K. S. (1996a). A theoretical approach to studying work empowerment in nursing: a review of studies

testing Kanter’s theory of structural power in organizations. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 20(2), 25–41.Laschinger, H. K. S. (1996b). Measuring empowerment from Kanter’s (1977; 1993) theoretical perspective.

Journal of Shared Governance, 2(4), 23–26.Laschinger, H. K. S., & Wong, D. (1999). Staff nurse empowerment and collective accountability: effects on

perceived accountability and self-rated work effectiveness. Nursing Economics, 17(6), 308–316.Laschinger, H. K. S., Sabiston, J. A., & Kutzscher, L. (1997). Empowerment and staff nurse decision involvement

in nursing work environments: testing Kanter’s theory of structural power in organizations. Research in Nursingand Health, 20, 341–352.



Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J. (2001a). The impact of workplace empowerment andorganizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment. Health CareManagement Review, 26(3), 7–23.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2001b). Impact of structural and psychologicalempowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: expanding Kanter’s Model. Journal of NursingAdministration, 31, 260–272.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Wilk, P., & Shamian, J. (2000). A confirmatory factor analysis of the CWEQ,JAS, ORJ, ITW AND OCQ. Working paper. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario.

Lemieux-Charles, L., Murray, M., Baker, G. R., Barnsley, J., Tasa, K., & Ibrahim, S. A. (2002). The effects ofquality improvement practices on team effectiveness: a mediational model. Journal of Organizational Behavior,23, 533–553.

Lieberson, S. (1985). Making it count: The improvement of social research and theory. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.McClure, M. L., Poulin, M. A., Sovie, M. D., & Wandelt, M. A. (1983). Magnet hospitals: Attraction and retention

of professional nurses. Kansas City, MO: American Academy of Nursing.McDermott, K., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Shamian, J. (1996). Work empowerment and organizational commitment.

Nursing Management, 27(5), 44–48.Mishra, A. K., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: the roles of trust,

empowerment, justice and work redesign. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 567–588.Noer, D. (1993). Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.O’Brien-Pallas, L., Baumann, A., Donner, G., Lochhaas-Gerlach, J., Luba, M., Lakats, L., Amarsi, Y., & Mallette,

C. (1998). Health human resources: An analysis of forecasting models. Ottawa: Canadian Nurses’ Association.Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. E. (1991). Measurement, design and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.Plewis, I. (1985). Analysing change: Measurement and explanation using longitudinal data. Chichester: Wiley.Podsakoff, P. E., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of

Management, 12(4), 531–544.Prestholdt, P. H., Lane, I. M., & Mathews, R. C. (1987). Nurse turnover as reasoned action: development of a

process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 221–227.Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal,

24(3), 543–565.Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). The road to empowerment: seven questions every leader should consider.

Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, 37–49.Raykov, T. (1993). A structural equation model for measuring residualized change and discerning patterns of

growth or decline. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 53–71.Rogosa, D. (1979). Causal models in longitudinal research. In J. R. Nesselroad, & P. D. Baltes (Eds.), Longitudinal

research in the study of behaviour and development (pp. 263–302). New York: Academic Press.Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological

Monographs, 80, 1–28.Ryten, E. (1997). A statistical picture of the past, present and future of registered nurses in Canada. Ottawa:

Canadian Nurses Association.Sochalski, J. (2001). Nursing’s valued resources: critical issues in economics and nursing care. Canadian Journal

of Nursing Research, 33(1), 11–18.Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: myth or

significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 438–443.Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation.

Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1462.Spreitzer, G., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between

psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679–704.

Statistics Canada. (2000). National labor force survey. Ottawa: Government of Canada.Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: a dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 70, 469–480.



Steel, R. P., & Rentsch, J. R. (1997). The dispositional model of job attitudes revisited: findings of a 10-year study.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 873–879.

Thorlakson, A. J. H., & Murray, R. P. (1996). An empirical study of empowerment in the workplace. Group andOrganization Management, 21(1), 67–83.

Upenieks, V. V. (2003). The interrelationship of organizational characteristics of magnet hospitals, nursingleadership, and job satisfaction. Health Care Manager, 22(2), 83–98.

Visser, R. A. (1982). Analysis of longitudinal data in behavioural and social research: An exploratory survey.Leiden: DSWO Press.

Wilson, B., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (1994). Staff nurses’ perception of job empowerment and organizationalcommitment: a test of Kanter’s theory of structural power in organizations. Journal of Nursing Administration,24(4s), 39–45.



Documents

A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction