Influence of Organizational Culture on Psychological Empowerment of Academicians in Research Universities

Refereed Paper

Ahadi, Sahar ; Turiman, Suandi; Ismail, Maimunah; Omar, Zoharah

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Psychological empowerment of refers to dimensions of autonomy, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, impact and decision making of the academicians in a university. Organizational culture can be a powerful influence on the psychological empowerment because it describes the link between contextual factors and employees’ work behaviors. A question arises: Which type of culture is needed in a university that helps academicians to feel empowered? This study aimed to examine the relationship between organizational culture and psychological empowerment of academicians in research universities in Malaysia.

Methods: The respondents of the study were academicians from four research universities in Malaysia. The study used a cluster random sampling technique. Ratios of academicians in each university were considered for distributing the questionnaires. A total of 135 completed questionnaires were obtained out of 400 distributed. The study utilized Common Methods Variance bias (of AMOS) for factor analysis. A step-wise regression analysis was performed to predict the influence of organizational culture on the psychological empowerment dimensions.

Results and conclusion: Results of the study revealed organizational culture associated with psychological empowerment and its dimensions. The dominant culture in research universities was hierarchy culture, while the strongest predictor of psychological empowerment was clan culture. Implications for human resource development in higher education particularly the research universities were put forth.

Keywords: psychological empowerment, organizational culture, research universities.

Introduction

Pressure, change and uncertainty are some of challenges that higher education faces these days (Bartell, 2003; Machado & Taylor, 2010). Increasing pressures from governments and global markets change the roles and work style of its academicians and scholars (Altbach, 2004; Douglass, 2005; Gordon & Whitchurch, 2007; McInnis, 2000; Wood, 2005). These challenges are not only related to structure and systems but also to the development of academic staff.

Universities increasingly need to compete globally with other knowledge providers for highly qualified staff with new and different skills in research and teaching activity. Teaching, scholarship, research, consultancy, community service and administration are the major tasks of academicians in universities in the globalization era. Making academicians’ career more attractive requires enough consideration on their empowerment (Meyer, 2005; Short & Greer, 1997; Strazzeri, 2005; Thorndyke, Gusic, George, Quillen, & Milner, 2006).

Employee empowerment is one of the most successful ways to improve employee motivation, organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and a great deal of effort has been expended to explore empowerment in organizations (Henkin & Marchiori, 2003; Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk, 2009; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002; Wang & Lee, 2009). Empowerment develops professional growth in abilities and skills, self-efficacy and performance and decreases turnover of employers (Biron & Bamberger, 2010; Greasley, Bryman, Dainty, Price, Naismith, & Soetanto 2008; Logan & Ganster, 2007; Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004; Yang & Choi, 2009). But implementing empowerment in workplace requires certain antecedents (Asmawi & Mohan, 2010; 2004; Ghani, Raja Hussin, & Jussef, 2009; Luby, 2006). Related research suggested that organizational culture facilitates empowerment (Hawks, 1999;

Johnson, 2009). Organizational culture has seen as a basic element of decision making for employees’ performance in their tasks.

Countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States provide strategies and conditions that reduce the uncertainty and maximize the performance and empowerment of academic staff (Gordon & Whitchurch, 2007; Henkin & Marchiori, 2003). Malaysia has recently reformed its higher education system resulting in the emergence of four research universities in 2006. The higher education systems face more global challenges than before. Therefore, governmental and institutional management are responsible to develop strategic plans for academicians to improve higher education performance, one of which is their psychological empowermt. But empowerment strategies in higher education is still at its the infancy stage in Malaysia (Ghani, Raja Hussin & Jusoff, 2009).

The literature shows a lack of study about the relationship between organizational culture and psychological empowerment among academicians in universities. Universities’ leadership should identify the dominant type of organizational culture and take actions to balance the organizational culture which is suitable for increasing the level of psychological empowerment. Since most of the studies on empowerment especially in the relation with organizational culture have been carried out in western contexts, and the findings could not be generalized in Malaysia due to different socio cultural contexts, this study attempts to examine the relation between organizational culture and psychological empowerment in Malaysian higher education.

The purpose of this study is to examine the organizational culture profile of academicians using competing values framework; and to investigate the relationship between organizational culture and psychological empowerment in research universities in Malaysia. Thus the research questions that guided this study are as follows: 1) What is the dominant organizational culture among lecturers in research universities in Malaysia? 2) Is there any relationship between organizational culture and academicians’ psychological empowerment? 3) Which type of organizational culture is a best predictor of psychological empowerment dimensions?

This paper is organized as follows: After this introductory section, a literature review on psychological empowerment and organizational culture is given, followed by the study methods that include sampling, instrumentation and reliability. It then presents results of the descriptive and regression analyses. The paper ends with conclusions, discussion of the research findings, recommendations for HRD theory and practice as well as for future research.

Conceptual Framework

The competing values model (Figure 1), is a multidimensional framework to assess organizational culture and psychological empowerment dimensions. The theoretical underpinnings of psychological empowerment and organizational culture for this study are based on conceptualization of Short and Rinehart (1992), who introduced psychological empowerment in education and competing value framework theory by Cameron and Quinn, (2006).

Spreitzer (1995) used the intrapersonal concept of empowerment for workplace as described by Thomas and Velthouse (1990). This psychological perspective of empowerment focuses on the perception of employee on empowerment. Spreitzer (1995) defined psychological empowerment as an intrinsic task motivation that manifests itself in cognitions reflecting an individual's orientation to his or her work roles. Intrinsic task motivation is positively valued experience that an individual derives directly from a task that produces motivation and satisfaction.

Psychological empowerment entails four cognitions namely, impact, competence, decision making and meaning. However, as the context of educational workplace differs from business, Short and Reinhart (1992) introduces psychological empowerment in educational settings that is dependent on six dimensions. The dimensions are autonomy, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, impact, and decision making (Wan, 2005; Short & Johnson, 1994). This study uses these dimensions of psychological empowerment.

Autonomy refers to academicians’ beliefs that they can control certain aspects of their work life (Short & Johnson, 1994; Womack & Loyd, 2004). Professional growth refers to the degree of opportunities that university and departments provide for academicians to grow and develop professionally, to learn continuously and develop certain skills for teaching and research. Status of academicians is often determined by their effectiveness in the classroom and research (Short & Johnson, 1994). Self-efficacy refers to the perception of self-knowledge and belief that academicians are personally competent and has mastered skills necessary to affect desired outcomes while impact refers to when academicians feel they have an influence on their work place (Womack & Loyd, 2004). Decision-making process in educational context involves collaborative communication, problem solving sessions, and goal setting.

Organizational culture is a predictor of several workplace behaviors, effectiveness and job performance. The competing values framework (CVF) conceptualizes the differences between organizational cultures along two dimensions: structure and focus. The structure dimension ranges from flexibility at one extreme to control at the opposite extreme. This dimension captures the difference between organizations that strive for consistent patterns of behaviors and those organizations that attempt to allow their employees to dictate their own behaviors. The focus dimension ranges from an external focus to an internal focus. An internal focus emphasizes factors internal to the organization, such as employee satisfaction, while an external focus emphasizes the organization's ability to function well in its environment (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Thus different types of culture exist in organizations. Based on competing values framework (CVF), organizations can have the clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy culture (see Figure 1).

Flexibility

ClanGlue: loyalty, commitmentLeadership: mentor, facilitator, team builderTheory of effectiveness: Human development and participation produce effectiveness

AdhocracyGlue: innovation, developmentLeadership: innovator, entrepreneur, visionaryTheory of effectiveness: innovativeness, vision, and new resources produce effectiveness

HierarchyGlue: formal proceduresLeadership: coordinator, monitor, organizerTheory of effectiveness: control and efficiency with capable processes produce effectiveness

MarketGlue: goal achievementLeadership: hard driver, competitor, and producerTheory of effectiveness: aggressively competing and customer focus produce effectiveness

Control

Figure 1. The Competing Values Framework Source: Cameron and Quinn (2006, p. 46).

Inte

rnal

sho

rt-te

rm

smoo

th External long-term

com

petitive

Clan emphasizes shared values and goals, participation, and a sense of family. Adhocracy emphasized entrepreneurship, creativity, and adaptability, while hierarchy refers to many rules and regulations, clear lines of authority, and its concern with efficiency (Cameron & Ettington, 1988; Fralinger, 2007; Johnson, 2009). Market emphasizes competition, environmental interaction and customer orientation. The conceptual framework of this study explains that how each type of organizational culture has an influence on psychological empowerment. Different types of organizational cultures have different impacts on psychological empowerment. This means that certain type of organizational culture could facilitate academicians’ empowerment, while other types of culture could not. In other words, while culture which emphasizes creativity, adaptability and participation increases the lecturers’ psychological empowerment, but culture which stresses on adherence to many rules, regulations and clear lines of authority may decrease their empowerment. Psychological empowerment of academicians has been suggested to be influenced by the organizational culture (Spreitzer, 1995; Johnson, 2009).

The connection between culture in organization and psychological empowerment built on the body of research describing the relationship between the aspects of contextual factors and employees’ work behaviors (Spreitzer, 1996). Organizational culture can be a powerful influence on cognitions of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995, 2006). But a question arises: Which type of culture is needed in universities that helps academicians to feel empowered? This study therefore looks at organizational culture as one of the determinants to the academicians’ psychological empowerment. Figure 2 portrays the conceptual framework of this study.

Organizational Culture Psychological Empowerment

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of the Study

Literature Review

Psychological Empowerment

Changes and transitions in higher education have the potential to influence the performance of lecturers. Academicians in universities should be empowered to have the ability to face these changes. Psychological empowerment may be used as a means to motivate the academicians is in order to increase their level of performance in teaching and research.

Psychological empowerment includes intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral empowerment. Several research efforts focused on psychological empowerment in business and education. Spreitzer’s (1996;

Adhocracy

Market

Hierarchy

Clan Autonomy

Professional Growth

Status

Self-efficacy

Impact

Decision making

2006) model of psychological empowerment in organizations describes empowerment as a result of an employees’ perception of her/his personal state or interpersonal interaction.

Short and Reinhart (1992) defines psychological empowerment in educational settings consists of six dimensions: autonomy, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, impact and decision making. Workplace empowerment is a management strategy that has been shown to be successful in creating positive work environments in educational settings. Conger and Kanungo (1988) defines psychological empowerment as the process of enhancing the feeling of self-efficacy among the members of an organization. Empowerment helps employees to increase their innovative behavior and effectiveness. Psychological empowerment is positively related to creative performance (Wei, Yuan, & Di, 2010).

Cognitive and motivational mechanisms of psychological empowerment explain the effects of management on work performance (Hall, 2008). Psychological empowerment influences cognition-based trust and it is a fundamental element in organizational effectiveness (Ergeneli, Saglam, & Metin, 2007). Higher ratings in dimensions of psychological empowerment are needed to ensure a high level of empowerment (Brancato, 2006; Ghani, Raja Hussin, & Jussef, 2009; Hancer & George, 2003; Lee & Koh, 2001).

Organizational Culture

According to Hofstede (2001), organizational culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one organization from another. Schein (2004) defines organizational culture as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that is learnt by the organization as it solves its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems. Organizational culture shapes organizations and provides a better understanding of complex organizational components, such as empowerment (Johnson, 2009; Kim, 2008; Sigler & Pearson, 2000).

Similarly in higher education, organizational culture influences on knowledge management (Devi, Chong & Lin, 2007). Organizational culture plays an important role in the successfulness of the change process and primary component of functional decision making in universities (Franlinger, 2007; Lincoln, 2010). Research indicates that specific organizational culture is linked with higher education service quality and job satisfaction (Tierney, 2008; Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009)

Within organizations, including universities, culture defines appropriate behavior, connecting and motivating individuals, while managing the way of information process within institutions, shaping their internal relations and even values. Academicians, administrators, trustees’ beliefs shape the organizational culture in higher education (ASHE, 2003). The university culture is full of complexity as the beliefs and practices of trustees, senior administrators, faculty members, campus community members, competitors, and society combine to shape the effectiveness of that university.

Four different types of culture namely clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy in university may have different influences on academic staff workplace behaviors (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Fralinger, 2007; Fralinger, Olson, Pinto-Zipp & DiCorcia, 2010; Gregory, Harris, Armenakis & Shook, 2009; Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009). Based on competing values framework the clan culture represents a family-type organization (Johnson, 2009, Cameron & Quinn, 2006). It emphasizes teamwork and employee development, as customers are considered partners. This form of organization promotes a human work environment, with the managerial goal of empowering employees by gaining their participation, commitment, and loyalty. Leaders are considered mentors or parent figures, as loyalty, tradition, and commitment are emphasized. Through teamwork, participation, and consensus, a successful internal climate with a concern for people can be achieved (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). Adhocracy is based on the term ad hoc, which refers to a temporary, specialized, dynamic unit. The goal of these organizations is to be innovative and adaptive.

The market culture refers to a type of organization functioning as a market itself. The market operates primarily through monetary exchange, as competitiveness and productivity in these organizations are

dependent on strong external positioning and control, while the hierarchy culture emphasizes an environment that is relatively stable, where tasks and functions can be integrated and coordinated, uniformity in products and services can be maintained, and workers and jobs are under control. In this culture, success is defined by incorporation of decision-makers of clear authority, standardized rules and procedures, and control and accountability mechanisms. Individuals follow procedures, and leaders effectively coordinate and organize activity to maintain a smooth-running organization. Stability, predictability, and efficiency characterize the long-term concerns of this organization (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). This organizational culture is situational oriented.

Malaysian studies on organizational culture in higher education show that cultural values in universities will enhance innovation and to abandon those practices that hinder creativity and innovativeness and to warrant success in managing knowledge (Altbach, 2007; Asmawi & Mohan, 2010; Devi, Chong & Lin, 2007; Yiing & Ahmad, 2009). An effective university culture teaches and exhibits appropriate behavior, motivates individuals, and governs information processing; these components of culture can shape internal relations and values.

Relationship between Organizational Culture and Psychological Empowerment

Various researchers have looked into the process of empowerment and concluded a number of conditions that are essential to the implementation of academicians’ empowerment. The research in higher education on psychological empowerment focused on organizational workplace outcomes behaviors but very little on academicians’ culture. Empowerment in workplace cannot be without environmental contexts because producing empowerment requires changing organizational cultures and environments. Organizational environments or climates can facilitate or inhibit empowerment (Asmawi &   Mohan, 2010; Contreras-McGavin, 2004).

Psychological empowerment is more likely to succeed when the appropriate organizational culture contains (Chiang & Jang, 2008; Johnson, 2009; Samad, 2007, Spreitzer, 1995a). The culture that emphasizes flexibility and autonomy with rewards for participation would facilitate psychological empowerment. Organizational culture provides an excellent framework for understanding and assessing the person-environment fit needed for psychological empowerment to succeed within an organization. It considers individual attitudes, employee behavior, and organizational practices as interconnected elements within organizational life .

Different cultural types have different impacts on psychological empowerment. Therefore, researchers must consider more on different types of organizational culture in order to identify the one which may enhance the psychological empowerment of academicians in universities (Al-Khalifa & Aspinwall, 2001; Cai, 2008; Stock, McFadden, & Gowen 2006; Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2010).

There is a knowledge gap in terms of the relationships between organizational culture types and each of the four dimensions of psychological empowerment especially in the context of higher education. Therefore, this study is an attempt to fill in this knowledge gap, through which it is expected that it brings academic and practical insights to the working culture in higher education that emphasizes research and development.

Methodology

Sample

The respondents of the study were academicians from four research universities in Malaysia of which the universities obtained their research status in 2006. The study used a cluster random sampling technique. Ratios of academicians in each university were considered for distributing the questionnaires. A total of 135 completed questionnaires were obtained out of 400 distributed. The study utilized Common Methods Variance bias (of AMOS) for factor analysis. A step-wise regression analysis was performed to predict the influence of organizational culture on the psychological empowerment dimensions.

The study questionnaires were sent with a cover letter, followed by a reminder letter in two weeks after. Prior to data gathering, negotiation were made with the heads of departments in all four universities for execution of the research. An introductory letter from the head of each department explained the purpose of the study as well as introduced the researcher to the prospective respondents. The respondents were given two weeks to complete the questionnaires. Each questionnaire took approximately 15-20 minutes to be completed.

The academicians were given face-to-face explanations regarding the purpose for their participation. To encourage better responses, participants did not identify themselves by name or employee number. The completed questionnaires were picked up after two weeks with reminder letters were to those with no response.

Measurement and Instruments

The instrument consists of three sections namely, demographic characteristics, psychological empowerment and organizational culture. Each is explained as follows:

Demographic Characteristics

Demographic characteristics section includes the personal data of respondents of age, gender, work experience and number of years as faculty member in current department. The data were analyzed using frequencies and percentages as descriptive measures.

Psychological Empowerment

Psychological empowerment used Faculty Participant Empowerment Scale (FPES) that measures perception of psychological empowerment within educational setting with six components (Short & Rinehart, 1992). Autonomy refers to academicians beliefs that they can control certain aspect of their work life. Professional growth refers to academicians’ perceptions that university provides opportunities for growing and developing as a professional, learn continuously, and expand one’s skills.

Status refers to the academicians’ sense of esteem ascribed by others to position of academicians. Self-efficacy refers to academicians’ perceptions that they have the skills and ability to help students learn, are competent in building effective programs for students, and can affect change in student learning. Impact refers to academicians’ perceptions that have an effect and influence on university life. Decision making refers to the participation of academicians in critical decisions that directly affect their work (Short & Rinehart 1992).

A sample item for the dimension of decision making is “I am given the responsibility to monitor Programs”. A sample item for the dimension of Professional growth reads “I function in a professional environment”. A sample for status is” I believe that I have earned respect”. A sample for self-efficacy is “I believe that I am helping students become independent Learners”. Samples for autonomy and impact respectively are “I have control over daily schedules” and “I believe that I have the ability to get tasks done”.

Organizational Culture

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) is used for this study. Six dimensions of organizational culture are namely, dominant characteristics of organization, leadership style and approach, management of employees, organizational glue, statistical emphases, and criteria success (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Cameron & Quinn 2006). Modification was done to the instrument from ipsative scale to a 24-item of 7-point Likert scale (ranging from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree).

The dominant characteristics of organization are the organization’s most overt features. The leadership style and approach refers to recognition and use of power by leader within the organization. Management of employees means the manner in which workers are treated. The organizational glue refers to the

forces or commonalities that bind members of an organization together. Strategic emphases are motivating factors within an organization. The criteria for success refer to the intrinsic or extrinsic reward systems. Each of six dimensions contains four items. Item 1 related to clan culture, item 2 related to adhocracy culture, item 3 related to market culture and item 4 related to hierarchy culture. Scores of the four culture types were attained by summing up the six items for each culture type.

In the organizational culture scale, a sample item for the dimension of clan culture reads “this university is a very personal place. It is like an extended family”. For adhocracy culture is “The leadership in the university is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovating or risk taking”. A sample item for market culture is “this university defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and out placing the competition. Competitive market leadership is the key”. For hierarchy culture, a sample item reads “The glue that holds this university together is formal rules and policies. Maintain a smooth-running organization is important”.

Multicollinearity and Common Methods Variance Bias

As all data were from self-report measures, the possibility of common-method bias and multicollinearity needed to be ascertained. To assess CMV (Common Methods Variance) bias, all variables were simultaneously factor analyzed by AMOS. In maximum likelihood approach is used. Chi-square is divided by the degree of freedom to assess model fit. A ratio less than 2.00 would indicate concomitant common method bias. For these data, the ratio was 5.45 indicating that common-method bias is not problematic in this study. Hence, the problem of multicollinearity does not exist among the independent variables.

Results

Table 1 shows mean, standard deviation, and reliability values (Cronbach’s alpha) for all variables. Most of the scales had reliabilities around 0.8 or higher, and none are below 0.7. Mean, standard deviation and reliabilities were analyzed by using SPSS version 15. The descriptive analysis of demographic information revealed that the mean age of the academicians was 43 years (SD=8.07). On average, they had 12 years (SD=7.8) of work experience in the current department. The majority was male (54.8%) and worked full time (80%) (Table 2).

Table 1: Mean, standard deviation and reliability of measurement variables

Instrument Mean SD Score Range

Cronbach’s Alpha

FPES:Decision Making 4.38 1.04 1-7 .90Professional Growth 5.00 0.94 1-7 .86Status 5.47 0.60 1-7 .88Self-efficacy 5.46 0.69 1-7 .89Autonomy 5.11 0.82 1-7 .87Impact 5.16 0.69 1-7 .86Total Psychological Empowerment 32.64 4.59 6-42 .98OCAI:Clan 4.29 1.16 1-7 .87Market 4.23 1.03 1-7 .82Adhocracy 4.21 1.04 1-7 .81Hierarchy 4.59 0.76 1-7 .72Total Organizational Culture 17.32 3.58 4-28 .94

Table 2: Mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentage of demographic characteristics of academicians

Frequency Percentage Mean SDGender Male 74 54.8 Female 61 45.2Age (years) 43 8.07 26-36 32 23.7 37-46 56 41.5 47-65 47 34.8Work experience (years) 12 7.83

The mean scores of cultural alternatives (A=Clan, B=Adhocracy, C=Market, D=Hierarchy) presented in Table 1 are illustrated on a four-quadrant plot (Figure 3). Based on the descriptive analysis the result shows that hierarchy (M=4.59; SD=0.76) is dominant organizational culture. The hierarchy culture emphasizes stability, control and predictability. The dominant leadership style in hierarchy culture is that of the coordinator, organizer or director where rules and policies are the primary bonding mechanism (Smart and John, 1996).

Figure 3: The Organizational Culture Profile Plot Note: A=Clan; B=Adhocracy; C=Market; D=Hierarchy

A

A

D C

Flexibility and Discretion

External Focus and D

ifferentiation

Stability and Control

Inte

rnal

Foc

us a

nd

Inte

grat

ion

A

B

A

C A

D

In order to test the relationship between organizational culture and psychological empowerment, simple regression was done. The result shows the organizational culture of academicians had significant and high relationship with psychological empowerment(r=0.734).

The regression analysis of criterion variable of psychological empowerment to the predictor variable of organizational culture is presented in Table 3. Organizational culture was statistically significant contributor to psychological empowerment (F=89.511, p < 0.01). The for organizational culture was 0.40 which indicates that 40.0% of the variability in academicians’ psychological empowerment was accounted for by organizational culture.

Table 3: Simple regression analysis between organizational culture and psychological empowermentVariable dfConstant 89.51 133 .40Organizational culture .63***p < .05. **p < .01.

For examining the associations between the organizational culture and empowerment components while accounting for relationships among the culture types themselves, a stepwise regression was done. All four types of culture were entered at the same time, and the probability of F was 0.05 to enter and 0.10 to remove.

The results are presented in Table 4. Clan was the strongest predictor of decision making, professional growth, status, autonomy and impact, while market was the second strongest predictor for decision making and professional growth. Only adhocracy culture type had significant predictive power on self-efficacy and no significant prediction of hierarchy culture with any of six psychological empowerment components.

Table 4: Step-wise regression analysis of organizational culture predicting psychological empowerment components

Empowerment component Organizational culture B SEBDecision making Clan .66 .12 .45** .38

Market .48 .14 .29** .05Professional growth Clan .40 .06 .49** .43

Market .25 .07 .27** .05Status Clan .22 .04 .43** .18Self-efficacy Adhocracy .25 .05 .38** .14Autonomy Clan .26 .05 .44** .18Impact Clan .27 .05 .45** .20Notes: Only predictors with significant beta weights are shown; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01B = Unstandardized reg. coefficient, SEB = Standard error B, = Standardized reg. coefficient.

As displayed in Table 4, decision making dimension can be significantly predicted from clan (β = .45; p < 0.01) and market culture (β =.29; p < 0.01). For decision making, a total of 44 %t of variance was explained with clan and market cultures. Clan culture was strongest predictor of decision making

( =.38). After clan, market culture predicts decision making ( =.05). Academics’ decision making was not positively correlated with neither adhocracy nor hierarchy culture. The results of regression analysis for the decision making dimension reveal that academics perceiving clan and market cultures result higher feeling on participation in decision making in their work place.

Two cultures namely clan (β = .49; p < 0.01) and market (β = .27; p < 0.01) cultures are significantly predicted professional growth. For professional growth, a total of 47%t of variance was explained with

clan and market cultures. Clan was strongest predictor of professional growth. ( =.43). After clan,

market culture predicts decision making ( =.05). There is no significant relationship between professional growth and adhocracy and hierarchy culture. These results show that as the academicians perceive a higher level of clan and market culture, they feel better professionally. Stepwise regression analysis results show that clan culture (β = .43; p < 0.01) was significantly predicted status. A total of 18%

of variance was explained with clan culture. Clan was the only predictor of status ( = .18). The results of stepwise regression showed that for self-efficacy dimension, adhocracy culture (β = .38; p < 0.01) was

the only culture which predicts this dimension of psychological empowerment ( =.14). For self-efficacy, a total of 15% of variance was explained with adhocracy culture. Also, there was no significant relationship between self-efficacy and market as well as hierarchy culture.

For autonomy, Clan culture was the only predictor of autonomy (β = .44; p< 0.01) was the only culture

which predicts autonomy ( =.18). For autonomy, a total of 19% of variance was explained with clan culture. Stepwise regression analysis results show that clan culture (β = .448; p < 0.01) was significantly predicted impact. For impact, a total of 21 % of variance was explained with clan culture. Clan was the

only predictor of impact ( =.20).

There was no significant relationship between impact and adhocracy culture. Similarly, there were significant relationships between impact and two other types of market and hierarchy cultures. Clan was the strongest predictor of decision making, professional growth, status, autonomy and impact, while market was the second strongest predictor for decision making and professional growth. Only adhocracy culture type had significant predictive power on self-efficacy and no significant prediction of hierarchy culture with any of the six psychological empowerment components.

Discussion and Conclusion

The profile graph in Figure 3 shows that the type of dominant culture in research universities from the academics’ perspective is hierarchy culture. Hofstede (2001) in the study on cultural dimensions in different countries asserted that Malaysian work environments had high power distance and is based on hierarchical relationship. Malaysian employees generally accept the manager’s authority (Abdullah, 1996). Therefore, hierarchy is a dominant type of culture in the selected Malaysian universities. This implies that a hierarchical structure exists between academic staff, administrators, students, alumni, and probably the external community. The hierarchy culture emphasizes an environment that is stable with long term perspective, and staff and their roles are under control. Therefore, success is achieved by the incorporation of standardized rules, formal and structured workplace procedures, and emphasis on rule reinforcement (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Smart & St. John, 1996).

The research results reveal that organizational culture is a predictor of faculty psychological empowerment. The results approve the previous studies that found contextual factors such as organizational culture contributed to employees’ psychological empowerment (Chiang & Jang, 2008). The result shows the role of organizational culture on increasing academic staffs’ psychological empowerment. Organizational culture which is based on an open communication and flexibility allows academics to participate in decision making and express their opinions and support the feedbacks in universities. This culture contributes to fostering psychological empowerment among academics in higher education. Because, psychological empowerment is not a personality trait which can be generalized across situations, but it is rather a set cognitions changed and shaped by work environments.

Specifically, clan culture was the strongest predictor of psychological empowerment and its five components except self-efficacy. The clan culture is characterized as having high flexibility, individuality,

and spontaneity as well as internal emphasis. This concurs with what is suggested, i.e. to have empowered academicians; family-type context is needed.

An effective university culture teaches and exhibits appropriate behavior, motivates individuals, and governs information processing; these components of culture can shape internal relations and values more than stereotypical and bureaucratic corporation. Clan culture emphasizes flexibility and discretion rather than the stability and control of hierarchy. Therefore, as clan culture is a strongest predictor for academicians’ psychological empowerment more emphasis should be done on making the environment friendlier to the employees rather than controlling them.

Results of study also indicate that adhocracy culture was a best predictor for self-efficacy dimension of psychological empowerment. Self-efficacy refers to the academicians confidence in their ability to teach and do research well. The self-efficacy among academicians in their workplace leads to productivity, participation, creativity and innovation and being part of the decision-making process. A major goal of an adhocracy is to foster adaptability, flexibility, and creativity where uncertainty, ambiguity, and information overload are some of the common characteristics. A high level of self-efficacy in such an environment is necessary as an evidence for the academicians’ coping strategy. Hence, adhocracy culture is a contributor to improve self-efficacy of academicians in research universities.

Leaders in universities have to admit the importance of clan culture in the context of higher education. It is agreeable as suggested by Park and Kim (2009) spending time to maintain group harmony, encouraging mentoring system among the academics, and giving avenues to academicians to voice ideas in their respective areas of expertise are some of the strategies that should be adopted by universities. By creating a greater sense of psychological empowerment on academic staff, more positive gain would be felt such as on levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. An organizational culture that is conducive to change is one of the important factors that can influence on psychological empowerment. Empowerment culture is needed in research universities to improve effectiveness and quality of creating new knowledge which is the main goal of these organizations.

Contribution to HRD

This study makes practical contributions to human resource development (HRD) by giving new insight about the concept of psychological empowerment in higher education. The knowledge gap in terms of link between psychological empowerment and organizational culture in a higher education setting is fulfilled. Determining a relationship between organizational culture and psychological empowerment provides empirical support for possible systematic educational approaches or organizational changes that can foster empowerment and performance in higher education. Creating culture of empowerment can influence academicians’ abilities to become more qualified in their teaching and research responsibilities. Study findings contribute to a greater awareness and better understanding of the potential influence the academic culture may have on lecturers’ empowerment in teaching and research responsibilities.

This study has notable implications for HRD frontiers; especially the ones who are interested in organizational effectiveness and development in educational settings by knowing which type of organizational culture is predictive to academicians’ psychological empowerment. Human resource practitioners and experts can take actions to create an organizational culture that supports psychological empowerment of academicians because culture tends to be embedded in and transmitted through the behavior of universities’ leaders. Empowerment may be an important solution for attracting, keeping, and motivating employees. Academicians’ performance, productivity and professionalization are the issues which are important in overall function of higher education particularly the research universities. The findings of this study may provide better knowledge to HRD practitioners and leadership about factor which can help them to achieve performance and effectiveness of academicians. The norms and shared values eventually permeate to the procedures and outcomes in workplace. Therefore, it is important for HRD practitioners and leaderships to examine the norms and values and how it could foster or impede empowerment. This study provides insight on important role organizational culture has on empowerment dimensions which in turn affect on lecturers’ workplace outcomes behaviors.

References

Abdullah, A. (1996). Going glocal, Kuala Lumpur, SL: Malaysian Institute of Management.

Al- Khalifa, K. N., & Aspinwall, E. M. (2001). Using the competing values framework investigates the culture of Qatar industries, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 12(4), 417- 428.

Altbach, P. G. (2007). Peripheries and centers: Research universities in developing countries, Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2) 1-24.

Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalization and the university: myths and realities in an unequal world, Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1) 3-25.

ASHE (2003). ASHE higher education report - governance in the twenty-first-century university: approaches to effective leadership and strategic management, ASHE Higher Education Report, 30(1), 41-49.

Asmawi, A., & Mohan, A. V. (2010).  Understanding patterns of organizational culture: A study in Malaysian R&D institutions, Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), 2010 IEEE International Conference, Singapore, June 2010, (pp.324-329),Singapore.   

Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework, Journal of Higher Education, 45(1), 43-70.

Biron, M. & Bamberger, P. (2010) The impact of structural empowerment on individual well-being and performance: taking agent performances, self-efficacy and operational constraints into account, Human Relations, 63(2), 163-191.

Brancato, V. (2006). Enhancing psychological empowerment for nurses. The Pennsylvania Nurse. 61(2), 31-33.

Cameron, K. S., and Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chiang, C. F., and Jang, S. S. (2008). The antecedents and consequences of psychological empowerment: The case of Taiwan's hotel companies. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism research, 32(1), 40-61.

Cai, Y. (2008). Quantitative assessment of organizational cultures in post-merger universities. Cultural Perspectives in Higher Education, 3, 213-226.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.

Devi, R. S., Chong, S. C. & Lin, B. (2007). Organizational culture and KM processes from the perspective of an institution of higher learning, International Journal of Management in Education, 1(1), 57-79.

Douglass, J. (2005). How all globalization is local: Countervailing forces and their influence on Higher education markets, Higher Education 18, 445-473.

Ergeneli, A. Saglam, G., & Metin, S. (2007). Psychological empowerment and its relationship to trust in immediate managers Journal of Business Research, 60 41–49 Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V7S-4M93P95-

Fralinger, B. (2007). Organizational culture at the university level: A study using the OCAI instrument. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 4(11), 85-98.

Fralinger, B., Olson, V., Pinto-Zipp, G., & DiCorcia, M. (2010). Organizational Culture at the university level: a follow-up study using the OCAI instrument, 2010 EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings, June7-10 Dublin, Ireland.

Ghani, A. Z., Raja Hussin, T. A. B., & Jussef, K. (2009). Antecedents of Psychological Empowerment in the Malaysian Private Higher Education Institutions, Journal of International Education Studies, 2(3) 161-165. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/viewFile/3341/3007

Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Naismith, N., & Soetanto, R. (2008). Understanding empowerment from an employee perspective: What does it mean and do they want it? , Team Performance Management, 14 (1) 39 – 55

Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes, Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 673–679.

Gordon, G., & Whitchurch, C. (2007). Managing human resources in higher education: the implications of a diversifying workforce. Higher Education Management and Policy,19 (2), 135-155. Retrieved from eprints.ioe.ac.uk/.../GordonandWhitchurch2007ManagingHumanResources135.pdf

Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on the role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance, Accounting, Organization and Society, 33(2/3) 141-163.

Hancer, M. R., & George R. T. (2003). Psychological Empowerment of Non-Supervisory Employees in Full-Service Restaurants. Hospitality Management 22, 3-16.

Henkin, A. B., & Marchiori, D. M. (2003). Empowerment and organizational commitment of chiropractic faculty, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 26(6), 275-281.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Johnson, B.A. (2009). Empowerment of nurses through organizational culture, Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(1) 8-13.

Kim, T. K. (2008). How Organizational Culture Affects the Empowerment of Social Workers?: Application of Multilevel Modeling to Social Work Research, society for social work and research The SSWR Annual Conference, Jan 2008, USA.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. (2009).Context matters the impact of unit leadership and empowerment on nurses’ organizational commitment, the journal of Nursing Administration, 39(5) 228-235.

Lee, M. & Koh, J. (2001). Is empowerment really a new concept? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4) 684-695.

Lincoln, S. (2010). From the individual to the world: how the competing values framework can help organizations improve global strategic performance, Emerging Leadership Journeys, 3 (1), 3-9. Retrieved from

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/elj/vol3iss1/Lincoln_ELJV3I1_pp3-9.pdf

Logan, M. S. & Ganster, D.C. (2007). The effects of empowerment on attitudes and performance: the role of social support and empowerment beliefs, Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1523-1550.

Machado, M. L. & Taylor, J. S. (2010). the struggle for strategic planning in European higher education: the case of Portugal, Journal of Research in Higher Education, 1(1),2010 retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10198/2280

Manojlovich, M., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2002). The relationship of empowerment and selected personality characteristics to nursing job satisfaction, Journal of Nursing Administration, 32(11) 586-595.

McInnis, C. (2000). Towards new balance or new divide? The changing work roles of academicians in Australia, In M. Tight (ed.), International Perspectives on Higher Education Research, Vol. 1 (pp. 117 - 145), Bingley, UK Emerald.

Meyer, D. (2005), Making academic careers more attractive – three basic principles, OECDConference on Trends in the Management of Human Resources, Paris, 25-26 August

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363–377.

Samad, S. (2007). Social structural characteristics and employee empowerment: The role of proactive personality, International Review of Business Research Papers, 3 (4) 254-264 retrieved from http://www.bizresearchpapers.com/Samad.pdf.

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership, (3rd ed), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004) Taking empowerment to the next level: a multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Academy Management, 47(3), 332-349.

Short, P. M. & Greer, J. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools, themes from innovative efforts. New Jersey: Merrill.

Short, P. M., & Johnson, P. E. (1994). Exploring the Links among Teacher Empowerment, Leader Power, and Conflict.  Education, 114(4), 581-593.

Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). Empowerment within the School Environment School Participant Empowerment Scale: Assessment of Level of. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 951-961.

Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 29(6), 703-722.

Sigler, T. H., & Pearson, C. M. (2000). Creating an empowering culture: examining the relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment, Journal of Quality Management, 5(1), 27-52.

Smart, J. C., & St. John, E. P. (1996). Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher education: A test of the "Culture Type" and "Strong Culture" hypotheses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 219-241.

Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256865

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483-504. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256789

Stock, G. N., McFadden, K. L., & Gowen, C. R. (2006). Organizational culture, critical success factors and the reduction of hospital errors. International Journal of Production Economics, 106, 368-92. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article.

Strazzeri, L. (2005). managing motivation and commitment versus compensation and research institutions, OECD Conference in Trends in the Management of Human Resources, 25-26 August, 2005, Paris.

Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive element of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258687

Thorndyke, L. E., Gusic, M. E., George, J. H. , Quillen, D. A., & Milner, R. J. (2006). Empowering junior faculty: Penn State's faculty development and mentoring program. Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 81(7), 668-673.

Tierney, W. G. (2008). Trust and organizational culture in higher education, cultural perspectives on higher education, 1, 27-41.

Trivellas, P., & Dargenidou, D. (2009). Organizational culture, job satisfaction and higher education service quality: The case of Technological Educational Institute of Larissa, The TQM Journal, 21 (4), 382-399.

Wan, E. (2005). Teacher empowerment as perceived by teachers in Hong Kong, Teachers College Record, 107, 842-861. Retrieved from http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langbo=1&nodeID=2075.

Wang, G., & Lee, P. D. (2009). Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: an analysis of interactive effects, Group Organization Management, 34(3) 271-296

Wei, F., Yuan, X., & Di, Y. (2010). Effects of transactional leadership, psychological empowerment and empowerment climate on creative performance of subordinate: A cross-level study. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 4(1), 29-46.

Wood, F. (2005). National capacity, competitiveness and scientific excellence. OECD Conference on Trends in the Management of Human Resources, 25-26 August, Paris.

Womack, C. E., & Loyd, G. (2004). Quit essential Leadership: Leading by Design College Quarterly, 7(2).

Yang, S. & Choi, S. O. (2009). Employee empowerment and team performance: Autonomy, responsibility, information, and creativity Team Performance Management, 15 (5/6) 289-301.

Yiing, L. H., & Ahmad, K. Z. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational culture on the relationships between leadership behavior and organizational commitment and between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30 (1) 53 – 86.