An Integrative Model of Empowerment and Individuals' In-Role and Extra-Role Performance in the Korean Public Sector: Moderating Effects of Organizational Individualism and Collectivism

Abstract

ABSTRACT While empowerment has emerged as a new management paradigm, virtually no research has combined structural and psychological approaches to develop an integrative approach. Moreover, prior research has not examined the effect of the cultural context on the relationship between empowerment and performance. Drawing on a sample of public employees working in the city of Seoul, the largest local government in Korea, this study examined the effects of structural and psychological empowerment on both in-role and extra-role performance, and the moderating effects of organizational individualism and collectivism. Of the 400 questionnaires, 191 usable respondents, combining employees' and managers' questionnaires, were returned. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM). Results of the analyses indicated that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between structural empowerment and extra-role performance, and that organizational collectivism moderates the relationship between psychological empowerment and extra-role performance. Based on these results, the implications of the findings are discussed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This article was based on Taejun Cho's doctoral dissertation, completed at the University at Albany, State University of New York in the United States, under the supervision of Sue R. Faerman. Notes Note. **Correlation is significant at 0.01 level. *Correlation is significant at 0.05 level. Cronbach's alpha is presented in parentheses. Note. Unstandardized estimates are showed. This study examines whether an integrative model of empowerment reveals a positive impact of empowerment on individual performance, which to date has been an unexplored outcome in the empowerment literature. In particular, we are interested in examining whether the two approaches to empowerment improve in- and extra-role performance, respectively. That is, this study expects that structural and psychological empowerment have different predictive power for in-role and extra-role performance. Although empowerment has been designed to give more power and feelings of competence to employees in an organizational hierarchy, there has been scant research to study the relationship between empowerment and individual performance. Moreover, while some researchers have focused on the relationship between empowerment and individual performance (Stashevsky and Elizur Citation2000), almost no previous studies have examined both in-role and extra-role performance. As a theoretical and practical foundation of reinventing government movements, empowerment that focuses on redesigned practices and reorganizations has been studied in the public management (Aucoin Citation1996; Gore Citation1993; Osborne and Plastrik Citation1997). The empowerment literature in public management has mainly emphasized structural empowerment as an administrative strategy to increase work-related outcomes, and researchers in public management have rarely considered another approach to empowerment, i.e., psychological empowerment, in the extant literature. Regarding the importance of behavior in considering the measurement of performance, Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmit (Citation1997) point out two reasons that behavior should be a more important factor than results in performance models. They argue that, “states or conditions of things or people that are changed by performance are also affected by other factors not under the individual performer's control” and “a behavioral focus is necessary to develop a psychological understanding of selection processes and apply the full range of psychological principles and tools to the problem of prediction most fruitfully” (Motowidlo et al. Citation1997, 73). Additionally, Williams (Citation1988) argues that in- and extra-role behaviors may be used as dimensions of individual performance when a supervisor evaluates his or her subordinates' behaviors. In determining the sample size for conducting SEM, there are issues that should be considered for collecting data to be analyzed using a covariance structure analysis with the maximum likelihood estimation method. Some researchers have argued that a minimum sample size must exceed 100, although a sample size of 200 is recommended for a model with moderate complexity (Marsh, Balla, and McDonald Citation1988; Russell Citation2002). Additionally, for maintaining the stability of the covariance matrix, Wright (Citation2001) argues that a covariance analysis requires a sample size of at least 300 when the reliability of measures is moderate (.60). This study exceeded the minimum size for conducting SEM, but failed to achieve the recommended one. Additional informationNotes on contributorsTaejun Cho Taejun Cho (taejunc@kipa.re.kr) is Research Fellow of the Department of Governance and Public Finance at the Korea Institute of Public Administration in Korea. His research works focus on the integration of managerial and motivational approaches in the management processes. He is also interested in cultural differences at the organizational level. Sue R. Faerman Sue R. Faerman (sfaerman@uamail.albany.edu) is Distinguished Teaching Professor of Public Administration and Policy and also serves as the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at the University at Albany–SUNY in the United States. Her research interests focus primarily on the paradoxical elements of managerial and organizational performance, with a particular focus on conflict and collaboration. She is also interested in cross-cultural differences in managerial practices.