UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEADER-MEMBER
EXCHANGE (LMX), PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT, JOB SATISFACTION,
AND TURNOVER INTENT IN A LIMITED-SERVICE RESTAURANT
ENVIRONMENT
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of
The Ohio State University
By
Michael Dwain Collins, M.S.
*****
The Ohio State University
2007
Dissertation Committee:
Approved by:
Professor R. Thomas George, Ed.D., Advisor
Professor Wayne A. Johnson, Ph.D.
Professor Robert Cudeck, Ph.D.
______________________________
Advisor
Graduate Program in Human Ecology
ABSTRACT
The present research studies the relationship between Leader-Member Exchange
(LMX), psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention within the
context of an upscale, limited-service restaurant environment. Participants responded to
an online survey in which these constructs were measured utilizing the LMX-7 to
measure the quality of the LMX relationship, twelve (12) items to measure the perceived
level of psychological empowerment, the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (shortform) to assess job satisfaction, and four (4) items to determine turnover intentions.
Principle component analysis was conducted in order to determine the factor structure of
the constructs. Structural equation modeling was utilized to test the six (6) proposed
hypotheses. The findings reveal that the quality of the LMX relationship and the level of
psychological empowerment have significant, direct linear relationships with job
satisfaction. Surprisingly, job satisfaction is not found to have a statistically significant
relationship with turnover intention for the sample group as a whole while psychological
empowerment proves to be the most reliable predictor of turnover intention. Discussion
highlights the relationships between the variables with different sub-sets of the sample
based upon demographic information. Implications for practitioners and future research
are also discussed.
ii
Dedicated to my two sons, Cameron and Connor, and my mother
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Please allow me to thank Dr. R. Thomas George for his patience and guidance
throughout the process of completing this dissertation. His knowledge of the subject
matter, research skills, and kind manner made the completion of this research possible. I
would also like to the Dr. Robert Cudeck for his support with the statistical analysis, in
particular, the structural equation modeling. With his encouragement, I advanced my
ability to utilize this particular data analysis tool. And finally, I would like to thank Dr.
Wayne Johnson for his input and keen eye for detail.
In addition, I would be remiss if I failed to thank my colleagues at the E. Craig
Wall Jr. College of Business Administration, Coastal Carolina University. They
encouraged me throughout the process with tales of their own dissertation processes. In
particular, I would like to thank my department chair, Dr. Mark Mitchell, program chair,
Dr. Taylor Damonte, and Acting Dean, Dr. Sam Wathen, for their encouragement,
patience, and support.
iv
VITA
July 11, 1960……………………………………………..Born – Columbus, Ohio
1982………………………………………………………B.A. Humanities
Michigan State University
2002………………………………………………………M.S. Strategic Leadership
Mountain State Univesity
1986 – 2001………………………………………………General Manager, Hyatt and Wyndham
Hotels and Resorts
2001 – 2002………………………………………………Director, Hospitality Management
Degree Programs, Mountain State
University
2003 – 2005………………………………………………Graduate Administrative Associate,
The Ohio State University
2005 – present…………………………………………….Assistant Professor, Wall College of
Business, Coastal Carolina University
PUBLICATIONS
Research Publication:
1. Collins, M. and Pasa, H.G. (2006) “Pricing Strategies to Maximize Revenues in the Lodging
Industry”; International Journal of Hospitality Management; 25(1), 91 -107
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Hospitality Management
Departmental Minor: Quantitative Psychology
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………...……iii
Acknowledgments………………….………...…………………………………….…….iv
Vita……………………………………………………………………………………...…v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..ix
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….…...xii
Chapters:
1.
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..…1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.
Purpose of the research……………………………………………………….6
Research objectives…………………………………………………………...7
Assumptions and instrumentation…………………………………………….8
Significance of the research…………………………………………………..9
Definition of terms…………………………………………………………..11
Subsequent chapters…………………………………………………………12
Review of the literature…………………………………………………………..13
2.1 Job satisfaction………………………………………………………………13
2.2 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)………………………………………….18
2.3 Psychological empowerment………………………………………………..22
2.4 Voluntary employee turnover….…………………………………………….28
2.5 Hypotheses……………….………………………………………………….32
2.6 Chapter summary……………………………………………………………36
2.7 Subsequent chapters…………………………………………………………37
3.
Methodology………………………………………….………………………..38
3.1 Research design……………………………………………………………..38
3.2 Sample………………………………………………………………………39
3.3 Data collection……………………………………………………………...40
3.4 Variables of interest.......................................................................................41
3.5 Instrumentation……………………………………………………………..42
3.5.1 Employee job satisfaction………………………………………...42
3.5.2 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)……………………………….44
3.5.3 Psychological empowerment……………………………………..45
vi
3.5.4 Turnover intention………………………………………………..46
3.6 Demographics………………………………………………………………46
3.7 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………….…47
4.
Findings……………………………………………………………..……..……48
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Respondents…………………………………………………………………48
Typical respondent…………………………………………………………..51
Non-respondents…………………………………………………………….51
Factor analysis………………………………………………………………53
4.4.1 Job satisfaction………………………………………………….…53
4.4.2 Leader-Member Exchange………………………………………...58
4.4.3 Psychological empowerment……………………………………...58
4.5 Mean scores and instrument reliability……………………………………...61
4.6 Between group differences………………………………………………….62
4.6.1 Gender……………………………………………………………..63
4.6.2 Age………………………………………………………………...67
4.6.3 Employment tenure………………………………………………..71
4.6.4 Industry tenure…………………………………………………….75
4.6.5 Employment status………………………………………………...80
4.6.6 Job function………………………………………………………..84
4.7 Bi-variate correlations…………………………..…………………………...87
4.8 Structural equation modeling………………………………………………..89
4.9 Non-linear regression analysis……………………………………………..106
4.10 Hypothesis testing………………………………………………………....108
4.11 Additional analyses………………………………………………………..111
4.11.1 Full-time versus part-time………………………………………112
4.11.2 Employees 35 years-of-age and over versus under 35………….119
4.11.3 Management/administrative employees………………………...125
4.11.4 Industry tenure over 10 years…………………………………...129
5.
Summary, conclusions, and implications……………………………………….138
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Summary…………………………………………………………………...138
Discussion……………………………………………………………….…143
Recommendations………………………………………………………….147
Limitations…………………………………………………………………150
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………151
vii
Appendix A: Data collection emails……………………………………………….…159
Appendix B: Survey instrument………………………………………………………162
viii
LIST OF TABLES
4.1
Page
Respondents age…………………………………………………….……………50
4.2
Respondents level of education………………………………………………….50
4.3
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire correlation matrix………………………..55
4.4
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire factor loadings and eigenvalues…...…….57
4.5
Psychological empowerment correlation matrix……………………………...…59
4.6
Psychological empowerment factor loadings and eigenvalues…………………..60
4.7
Descriptive statistics and reliabilities…………………………………………….62
4.8
Analysis of variance: between group differences X gender…………………….64
4.9
Gender differences of mean scores………………………………………………65
4.10
Effect size of gender………………………………………………………….….66
4.11
Analysis of variance: between group differences X age…………………….…..68
4.12
Age differences of mean scores……………………………………………….....69
4.13
Effect size of age…………………………………………………………………70
4.14
Analysis of variance: between group differences X employment tenure……….72
4.15
Employment tenure differences of mean scores…………………………………73
4.16
Effect size of employment tenure………………………………………………..74
4.17
Analysis of variance: between group differences X industry tenure……………76
4.18
Industry tenure of mean score……………………………………………………77
4.19
Effect size of industry tenure…………………………………………………….79
ix
4.20
Analysis of variance: between group differences X employment status……..…81
4.21
Employment status differences of mean scores………………………………….82
4.22
Effect size of employment status………………………………………………...83
4.23
Analysis of variance: between group differences X job function……………….85
4.24
Job function differences of mean scores…………………………………………86
4.25
Effect size of job function………………………………………………………..86
4.26
Bi-variate correlation matrix……………………………………………………..88
4.27
Manifest variables removed from structural equation model……………………94
4.28
Manifest variables retained in the modified structural equation model……….…95
4.29
Summary of relationships between the latent and manifest variables…………...99
4.30
Summary of direct relationships among latent variables……………………….100
4.31
Summary of the relationships between latent variables……………………...…101
4.32
Indirect effects mediated by job satisfaction…………………………….……..102
4.33
Correlation of matrix variables derived from the structural equation model…...105
4.34
Summary of non-linear regression analysis: LMX and turnover intention…….107
4.35
Correlation of matrix variables derived from the structural equation model:
full-time employees…………………………………………………………….117
4.36
Correlation of matrix variables derived from the structural equation model:
part-time employees…………………………………………………………….118
4.37
Correlation of matrix variables derived from the structural equation model:
employees 35 years-of-age and older……………………………………...…123
x
4.38
Correlation of matrix variables derived from the structural equation model:
employees under 35 years-of-age………………………………………………124
4.39
Correlation of matrix variables derived from the structural equation model:
management and administrative employees……………………………………128
4.40
Correlation of matrix variables derived from the structural equation model:
employees with over 10 years industry tenure……………………………..…132
4.41
Model fit, Sample Size and Estimates of Path Coefficients for
Direct Effects………………………………………………………………...…134
4.42
Squared Multiple Correlations for Direct Relationships……………………….135
4.43
Model fit, Sample Size and Estimates of Path Coefficients for
Indirect Effects….................................................................................................136
4.44
Squared Multiple Correlations for Indirect Relationships….….…………...…..137
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1
Page
Distribution of US foodservice labor by age, 2003……………………………….4
1.2
Average weekly hours worked, 1970 – 20003……………………………………5
1.3
Illustration of the proposed relationships among variables……………………….8
2.1
Herzberg (1959) job satisfaction and dissatisfaction continuums……………….15
2.2
Illustration of the relationships among variables with hypotheses identified……33
4.1
Structural equation model of the relationships between variables:
full-data set……………………………………………………………………….91
4.2
Modified structural equation model of the relationships between variables:
full-data set………………………………………………………………………97
4.3
Structural equation model illustrating the relationships between the
latent variables……………………………………………………………….…103
4.4
Structural equation model: full-time employees………………………………..114
4.5
Structural equation model: part-time employees……………………………….115
4.6
Structural equation model: 35 years-of-age and over……………………….….120
4.7
Structural equation model: under 35 years-of-age……………………………..121
4.8
Structural equation model: management employees…………………………..126
4.9
Structural equation model: 10+ years of industry tenure………………………130
5.1
Illustration of the Relationships between Latent Variables with
Hypotheses Findings Noted…………………………………………………….140
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Over the past two decades dramatic changes have taken root within the
workforce. Corporate re-structuring, downsizing and layoffs have permanently changed
the mindset of employees, which has lowered organizational commitment, workers’ trust
of management, and increased the frequency of career transitions (Cascio, 1993). Today,
the average tenure of an employee between the ages of 24 and 35 is a mere 2.7 years; the
new expectation of employees is that job security no longer exists and that employment
security, which is achieved when an employee is able to continually pursue and obtain
marketable skills, must be a worker’s top priority (Cascio, 2000). The popular perception
is that long-term employment with a single employer is not only rare today, it is often
viewed as a liability by employees and employers alike since experience with a number
of firms within a given industry is viewed as beneficial to the employee: an indication
that the individual has had exposure to a wide-range of perspectives, is more adaptable to
change, and possesses up-to-date skills.
Overall, research has indicated that this perception of job instability is a myth in
industrialized countries; however, a study of employment tenure in sixteen (16)
1
industrialized nations, including the United States, indicates that the average job tenure in
1998 was 10.5 years for all sixteen (16) nations included in the study, while job tenure
was 6.6 years for workers in the United States for the same period. In addition, failure of
job matches within the first year of employment ranged from 26.1% to 45.9% for
fourteen European nations in 1995 while a failure rate of 65.9% was experienced in the
United States, which may contribute to the perception of job instability in this country
(Auer & Cazes, 2000). In addition, research shows that job instability is indeed prevalent
among younger, low-wage, part-time, and marginal workers (Ananiadou, Jenkins, &
Wolf, 2004; Auer& Cazes, 2004).
Meanwhile, researchers have proposed that positive business outcomes are related
to many human resource constructs, such as employee job satisfaction, psychological
empowerment, and employee retention (Paul & Anantharaman, 2003), which have been
negatively impacted due to this increased perception of job instability. For example, the
Service-Profit Chain (SPC) proposes that a relationship exists between employee
satisfaction, service quality, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and the profitability
of a service firm (Heskett, Loveman, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997). The model suggests
that a service firm that prioritizes employee job satisfaction will deliver a higher level of
customer service, which will ultimately lead to a higher level of profitability. Employee
satisfaction serves as the catalyst for improved productivity, lower labor costs, reduced
turnover and increased employee commitment as well as customer retention, referrals and
loyalty. These positive business outcomes, in turn, contribute to the profitability of a
service firm. Work outcomes, as well as the perceived level of empowerment and job
2
satisfaction, may also be impacted by the nature of the relationships between supervisors
and subordinates in the work environment, often referred to as the leader-member
exchange (LMX) relationship (Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000).
High voluntary employee turnover, however, continues to plague the hospitality
industry, particularly the restaurant segment, which, according to the National Restaurant
Association (2005), employs a high proportion of young, part-time workers as illustrated
in figures 1.1 and 1.2. In addition, the industry is extremely labor intensive, which results
in low wages; in 2004, the average restaurant generated only $58,796 in total revenue per
full-time equivalent, which is substantially below other industries (National Restaurant
Association, www.restaurant.org, 2006). It is this segment of the workforce-- young,
part-time, and low-wage workers-- that is most impacted by the increased sense of job
instability. In addition, the challenge of recruiting and retaining workers was reported as
the number one business challenge by twenty percent (20%) of quick-service restaurant
operators in 2004 (National Restaurant Association, 2005). “Turnover remains one of the
most troubling issues for hospitality businesses” (Ghisell, La Lopa, & Bai, 2001). Not
only is it a business challenge relative to hourly associates, turnover of management
personnel is also an acute problem with various studies reporting management turnover
rates that range from 33% to as high as 100% annually (Ghisell, La Lopa, & Bai, 2001).
The cost of employee turnover in the hospitality industry can run into thousands of
dollars per employee lost (Hinkin & Tracy, 2000).
3
Figure 1.1: Distribution of U.S. Foodservice Labor Force by Age, 2003
4
Figure 1.2: Average Weekly Hours Worked, 1970 – 2003
5
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine the nature of the relationships among the
variables of leader-member exchange (LMX), psychological empowerment, job
satisfaction, and voluntary employee turnover intention. This study focuses on turnover
intention since it has been empirically validated to have a positive correlation with actual
employee turnover and has been generally accepted by researchers as the final cognitive
step in an employee’s decision to voluntarily leave a job (Hwang & Kuo, 2006; Lambert,
Hogan & Barton, 2001). Most turnover theories identify job satisfaction as a primary
antecedent to turnover intention, although the explained variation due to this negative
correlation has been small (Lambert, Hogan & Barton, 2001; Hom & Griffeth, 1991;
Sheridan & Abelson, 1983; Price, 1977). Consistent with this approach, the present
research will look at the impact of the LMX relationship and psychological
empowerment on job satisfaction, which ultimately influences turnover intention. The
relationship between LMX and psychological empowerment has been studied in a
restaurant environment (Kim & George, 2005; Hancer & George, 2001); however, this
study extends this research to measure the impact of these variables on job satisfaction
and turnover intention. The participants in this study include both line associates and
management personnel working for a quick-service restaurant franchisee that operates
over fifty (50) restaurants in several Midwestern and Western states.
6
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
In this study, the constructs and their relationships are investigated in an effort to
accomplish the following outcomes:
1. Determine the level of affect for the respondents relative to each of the primary
variables including the perceived nature of the LMX relationship, level of
psychological empowerment, degree of job satisfaction, and turnover intention.
2. Determine the nature of the relationships among the primary variables.
3. Test for differences between the respondents based upon demographic groupings,
including age, gender, job status (full-time or part-time), and position
(management or hourly).
4. Determine the degree to which each of the primary variables impacts turnover
intent.
Hypotheses regarding the relationships between the constructs, as illustrated in Figure
1.3, are developed in Chapter 2.
7
Figure 1.3: Illustration of the Proposed Relationships among Variables
ASSUMPTIONS AND INSTRUMENTATION
1. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) is measured from the perspective of the
member utilizing the seven-item LMX 7 scale developed by Graen, Novak, &
Sommerkamp (1982), which measures the quality of the work-related, social
exchange relationship relative to the inter-related dimensions of respect, trust, and
mutual obligations as well as an overall assessment (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
2. Psychological empowerment is assessed by utilizing twelve (12) items measuring
four dimensions on a 7-point, Likert-type scale: meaningfulness, impact,
competence, and self-determination, as developed by Spreitzer (1995a).
3. Job satisfaction is measured utilizing the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
short-form (Weiss, Cavis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), which is a 20-item
8
instrument that utilizes 5-point scale, and measures intrinsic, extrinsic, and
general satisfaction from the perspective of the employee.
4. Turnover intent is measured by the degree to which an employee determines that
it is likely that they will voluntarily leave their job as assessed on a 5-point scale
by a four-item survey instrument developed by Mitchel (1981).
5. It is assumed that the participants are each responding to the survey in a truthful
manner.
6. It is also assumed that this convenience sample of participants is representative of
the general population of limited-service restaurant employees.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
“The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover is one of the most
thoroughly investigated topics in the turnover literature” (Hwang & Kuo, 2006).
Understanding antecedents to job satisfaction is critical to identifying strategies that may
effectively reduce voluntary employee turnover. Research regarding the relationship
between LMX and turnover intention has produced equivocal results, suggesting that the
relationship between LMX and turnover is mediated through other affective cognitions
including organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Some researchers have
suggested that a negative, albeit weak, linear relationship exists (Gerstner & Day, 1997;
Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) while more recent empirical inquiries have suggested that a
curvilinear relationship may exist between the constructs (Morrow, Suzuki, Crum,
9
Reuben, & Pautsch, 2005; Harris, Kacmar, & Witt, 2005). The impact of LMX on
turnover requires additional inquiry and clarification. The relationship between LMX
and job satisfaction demonstrates a much more stable positive relationship (Gerstner &
Day, 1997) while the relationship between LMX and psychological empowerment has
been empirically validated by several researchers (Kim & George, 2005; Wat & Shaffer,
2005; Gomez & Rosen, 2001; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000). Psychological
empowerment has also been linked to job satisfaction (Hechanova, Alampay, & Franco,
2006; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004; Larrabee, Janney, Ostrow, Withrow, Hobbs, &
Burant, 2003; Hancer & George, 2001; Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty, 2000; Koberg, Boss,
Senjem, & Goodman, 1999; Fuller, Morrison, Jones, Bridger, & Brown, 1999). This
research explores the dynamics of the relationship between LMX and psychological
empowerment, as well as the impact that these variables may have on job satisfaction and
ultimately turnover intent. Researchers will gain a better understanding of how the
variables may interact while practitioners will benefit from the exploration of these
relationships as they strive to drive employee satisfaction and ameliorate the level of
voluntary employee turnover. Employee job satisfaction has been linked to
organizational performance, particularly customer satisfaction, in the restaurant industry
(Koys, 2001; Bernhardt, Donthu, & Kennett, 2000). Consequently, the present research
may help restaurateurs and other service firms improve the efficacy of their firms.
10
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): Leader-member exchange is defined as the quality of
the dyadic, work relationship between an organizational member and his or her
supervisor in terms of the interrelated dimensions of respect, trust, and mutual obligation
(Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Psychological empowerment: Psychological empowerment is defined as “intrinsic
motivation manifested in four cognitions, [meaning, competence, self-determination, and
impact], reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role” (Spreitzer, 1996, p.
484).
Job satisfaction: Job satisfaction is an affective response based upon the degree to which
a job fulfills various factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic, that are valued by the individual
employee (Henne & Locke, 1985).
Turnover intent: The degree to which an employee feels that he/she would leave their
current employer to pursue an alternate job (Mitchel, 1981).
Limited-service restaurant: The National Restaurant Association divides restaurants into
two broad categories, table-service and quick-service restaurants, and several subcategories. Quick-service restaurants are typically fast-food restaurants, which is a selfservice environment in which a customer is required to place and pay for his or her order
at a counter for pre-prepared food items and to clear his or her table at the conclusion of
the meal. In the present research, the participating restaurants are more upscale than the
11
typical fast-food environment, preparing meals to order, and will be referred to as
limited-service restaurants.
Hourly employee or line associate: A non-supervisory employee that is compensated
based upon the number of hours worked during the pay period.
Management personnel: Supervisory employees that oversee the activities of hourly or
line associates and/or other supervisors, and are typically paid a weekly salary, exempt
from overtime compensation.
SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS
Chapter 1 has introduced the current research project outlining the variables of
interest and the significance of the research. In Chapter 2, a review of the literature is
conducted in which the theoretical foundations of the constructs are outlined and the
current status of research relative to each variable is summarized. Hypotheses are also
developed based upon this review of the literature. In Chapter 3, the research
methodology for this study is detailed. The findings from the research will be presented
in Chapter 4, which will be followed by a discussion of the implications of the research in
Chapter 5.
12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This review of the literature will present the constructs as well as the results of
research relating to this study, which examines the relationship between Leader-Member
Exchange (LMX) and psychological empowerment as well as their impact on job
satisfaction and ultimately turnover intention. The theoretical foundation for the present
research is an outgrowth of the extensive work that has been done in the area of employee
motivation and job satisfaction.
JOB SATISFACTION
Maslow (1943) suggested that the desire to fulfill unsatisfied needs motivates
human behavior. He classified needs into a hierarchy consisting of the following five (5)
levels of needs:
1. Physiological needs: food and rest
2. Safety needs: security and stability
3. Social needs: interaction with others
13
4. Self-esteem: self-respect and recognition from others
5. Self-actualization: self-fulfillment and personal growth
Needs on each level of the hierarchy must be fulfilled before a person will be motivated
to pursue the fulfillment of needs on each subsequent level. If previously fulfilled needs
are not met, then an individual will move back down the hierarchy to re-establish
fulfillment. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been utilized to explain human motivation
in a variety of fields with self-actualization serving as the penultimate human need, which
we attempt to acquire through the pursuit of our full, unique, creative potential.
Investigations related to job satisfaction and employee motivation find their roots
in the work of Herzberg et al (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Herzberg’s
study served to clarify previous studies which attempted to identify the factors that
contributed to job satisfaction. Through their analysis of previous research, coupled with
extensive worker interviews, Herzberg et al determined that two distinct sets of factors
relate to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction respectively as opposed to the existence of a
single set of factors that operates along a continuum, which include both a range of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction. “When our respondents reported feeling happy with their
jobs, they most frequently described factors related to their tasks, to events that indicated
to them that they were successful in the performance of their work, and to the possibility
of professional growth. Conversely, when feelings of unhappiness were reported, they
were not associated with the job itself but with conditions that surround the doing of the
job” (Herzberg et al, 1959, p. 113).
14
Herzberg defined the factors that, if not present, lead to dissatisfaction as hygiene
factors and factors that lead to satisfaction as motivation factors. Hygiene factors include
supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, salary, company
policies and administrative practices, benefits, and job security. When these factors fail
to meet minimum thresholds, job dissatisfaction occurs; however, even if optimum levels
are achieved, higher levels of job satisfaction are not the result. Satisfiers or the
motivation factors associated with a job are the variables that tend to satisfy an
individual’s higher level needs, as defined by Maslow (1943), including social level
needs, self-esteem, and self-actualization. Hygiene factors fulfill more basic needs
equivalent to what Maslow refers to as safety and physiological needs. Herzberg et al
point out that the conditions in which work is done cannot fulfill these higher level needs;
they can be satisfied only through the performance of a task. Consequently, the satisfiers
or motivators include the following factors: achievement, recognition, responsibility,
advancement, and the work itself (Herzberg et al, 1959).
Figure 2.1: Herzberg (1959) suggested that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
operate along two separate continuums
15
The study of job satisfaction has also been influenced by social exchange theory
(Blau, 1964), which posits that individuals seek equilibrium or equity in their social
interactions with others, and expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), which proposes that an
individual is motivated to perform specific behaviors in anticipation of the receipt of a
specific reward. The decision to engage in a specific behavior is based upon the
perceived value of the reward and the anticipation that engaging in the behavior will
indeed result in the receipt of the expected reward. According to Adams’ (1965) equity
theory, satisfaction is achieved as a result of an equitable social exchange. In the case of
job satisfaction, that entails an equitable exchange of work on the part of the employee in
return for rewards received as a result of being employed in the job. Job satisfaction is an
affective cognition that is impacted by this exchange.
Henne and Locke (1985) state that “job satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) is an
emotional response to a value judgment by an individual worker”; satisfaction is a result
of the perception that needs are fulfilled while dissatisfaction is due to the perception that
they are frustrated. They identify the following values that employees seek relative to
many of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors previously outlined: Relative to the work
itself, most people desire work that they find interesting and significant and that provides
them with a sense of accomplishment. Workers also desire growth, responsibility,
autonomy, role clarity, role congruence, freedom from physical strain, and feedback
concerning performance. Relative to pay, workers want to be treated equitably in
comparison to others performing similar work, to receive competitive benefits, to feel
16
that their compensation is secure, and to be paid an amount that enables them to meet
their financial obligations. Relative to promotions, employees want to understand how
the promotion system works, that it is equitable, and to have advancement opportunities
available should they desire promotion. A convenient location and work schedule, safe
and attractive physical facilities, and the necessary equipment and resources accessible to
them to complete the job are what employees seek relative to working conditions.
Preferred co-workers share similar values and facilitate accomplishing the work while
preferred supervisors are those who are honest, fair, considerate, competent, that allow
employee participation in decision-making, and those that recognize and reward good
performance. Finally, employees tend to be more satisfied if they work for an
organization that demonstrates basic respect for employees and has clear direction, a
good product or service, and is managed effectively, which Henne and Locke (1985)
refer to as organizational competence.
Job satisfaction has long been an area of interest for researchers with well over
5,000 articles and dissertations written on the topic (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992).
Individuals invest a substantial portion of their time involved in activities associated with
their employment. Consequently, identifying the factors that impact job satisfaction can
benefit a substantial segment of society. In addition, employers can potentially improve
the efficacy of their organizations by understanding the antecedents to job satisfaction in
order to positively influence the affective state of their workers. Although the debate
continues as to whether employee satisfaction drives positive organizational performance
17
or vice versa, there is evidence to suggest that employee satisfaction is an antecedent to
positive business outcomes in the restaurant industry.
Utilizing cross-lagged regression analysis, Koys (2001) shows that a relationship
exists between the unit-level job satisfaction level and organizational effectiveness,
which includes a customer satisfaction measure and two measures of profitability,
measured in a subsequent time period utilizing data collected from a regional restaurant
chain. In another longitudinal analysis in the fast-food industry, a relationship is shown
to exist between employee job satisfaction and customer satisfaction although a link
between job satisfaction and profitability is not found (Bernhardt, Donthu, & Kennett,
2000). Job satisfaction also has a negative relationship with turnover intention, which is
a substantial challenge in the hospitality and food service industry (Ghiselli, LaLopa, &
Bai, 2001). Consequently, raising the job satisfaction levels of employees is a
worthwhile goal. The present research may assist practitioners in their efforts to
positively influence job satisfaction while providing researchers with additional insight
relative to the impact of LMX and psychological empowerment on job satisfaction.
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX)
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), first conceptualized as the vertical dyad
linkage model of leadership, was initially proposed as an alternative to an average
leadership style (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980). Many leadership
theories, including trait, behavioral, and contingency theories, propose that subordinate
18
perceptions of the leader’s style of leadership by organizational members are consistent;
LMX focuses on the unique relationships that may develop between supervisors and
individual subordinates within an organization. LMX is defined as the quality of the
dyadic, work relationship between an organizational member and his or her supervisor in
terms of the interrelated dimensions of respect, trust, and mutual obligation (Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1995).
LMX theory development first focused on identifying vertical dyadic
relationships and validating differentiation in the relationships that were formed between
a leader and his/her direct reports. During this phase of theory development, researchers
determined that leaders may utilize varying styles when relating to direct reports, as
opposed to an average leadership style, depending upon the nature of the relationship
between the parties (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga; 1975). This led to the formation of “ingroups” and “out-groups” within work units, with high quality exchanges or “in-group”
relationships being characterized by increased levels of mutual respect, trust, and
obligation. Associates that enjoyed high quality exchanges with their supervisors
received preferred work assignments and responsibilities that were often outside the
scope of their job descriptions acting as “trusted assistants” to their supervisors (Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1995).
The next stage of development explored the nature of the relationship further and
identified outcomes associated with high quality and low quality leader-member
exchanges. During this stage, researchers examined dyadic role-making processes
(Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982), antecedents to LMX (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell,
19
1993) and characteristics of followers in high quality LMX relationships (Scandura &
Graen, 1984) as well as its impact on outcomes such as performance (Scandura & Graen,
1984), job satisfaction (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982), turnover (Vecchio,
Griffeth, & Hom, 1986; Graen, Hoel, & Linden, 1982), and a variety of other
organizational variables (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As previously outlined, LMX has
been defined to be comprised of three (3) dimensions: respect, trust, and obligation. The
quality of the exchange can be assessed from the perspective of the leader, the member,
or both in a work relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This three-dimensional
structure has been accepted by many researchers and will be the utilized in the present
research.
During the initial stages of LMX theory development, LMX suggested that an
inequity occurred with in-group members receiving preferential treatment. More
recently, LMX has been described as an effective leadership process through which all
members are offered the opportunity to develop a partnership with their manager
recognizing that managers work with each subordinate on a one-to-one basis. A
Leadership Making model has been developed to explain the lifecycle of the leader
member relationship as it progresses toward maturity. Through this evolution, LMX
theory sought to shed the negative connotation of being discriminatory and to be
perceived as being equitable to all members of an organization. This approach to LMX
encourages managers to become more effective leaders by cultivating high quality
relationships with as many subordinates as possible in an effort to expand the capabilities
20
of the organization (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This evolution has resulted in the wide
acceptance of LMX as a useful, prescriptive leadership framework.
LMX has been identified to have a positive relationship with job satisfaction
(Stringer, 2006; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982) while its
relationship to turnover and turnover intent has been equivocal (Gerstner & Day, 1997;
Wilhelm, Herd, & Steiner, 1993). The greater the level of mutual respect, trust, and
obligation that exists between a supervisor and a subordinate, the higher the level of job
satisfaction that will be enjoyed by the subordinate due to the intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards that are likely to be realized by the employee, utilizing Herzberg’s et al (1959)
two-dimensional model of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Stringer (2006), utilizing a
sample of fire fighters, also confirmed that a positive relationship exists between LMX
and job satisfaction utilizing the LMX-7 and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire ShortForm, the same instruments being utilized in the present study. More recently
researchers have suggested that a curvilinear relationship may exist between LMX and
turnover (Morrow, Suzuki, Crum, Ruben, & Pautsch, 2005) and turnover intention
(Harris, Kacmar, Witt, 2004). The present research will seek to validate and further
clarify these findings, relative to the relationship of LMX with job satisfaction and
turnover intent respectively, in addition to exploring how psychological empowerment
may relate to these variables.
21
PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT
With the arrival of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management techniques in the
early 20th century, management’s primary task was to direct and control the activities of
workers in an effort to maximize productivity. Labor was viewed as a commodity, which
was purchased for a price. It was perceived as an economic exchange and financial
rewards were viewed as the primary motivator for workers. This perception began to
shift in the 1920’s due to the Hawthorne studies conducted by Mayo et al, which looked
at the impact of working conditions as well as psychological and social factors on the
productivity of workers (Clark, 2000). Herzberg’s et al (1959) qualitative interviews of
workers and evaluation of previous research, which has already been discussed, led to the
wide acceptance of a two-factor model of worker motivation consisting of hygiene
factors, which impact job dissatisfaction, and motivators, which address higher level,
social and psychological needs, potentially leading to job satisfaction. Meanwhile, the
seed of empowerment was planted by McGregor (1960) with his Theory ‘X’ and Theory
‘Y’ classification of leadership techniques. McGregor proposed that workers could be
more effectively motivated through participative management techniques (Theory ‘Y’) as
opposed to traditional, autocratic, control-oriented approaches (Theory ‘X’). A Theory
‘X’ management approach assumes that workers must be directed, controlled, and closely
supervised in order to be productive, while a Theory ‘Y’ perspective assumes that
workers should and will take an active role in planning and organizing their work if
22
encouraged by management to do so. Theory ‘X’ assumes that workers are indolent
while Theory ‘Y’ assumes that workers desire to be productive, contributing members of
the firm. Today, many managers attempt to capitalize on a Theory ‘Y’ perspective
through the use of employee empowerment.
Empowerment, however, involves more than simply the utilization of
participative management techniques (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). While they agree
that empowerment includes a relational dimension, in which management must
encourage worker involvement in making decisions, Conger and Kanungo also identified
a motivational dimension, which relates to self-determination and self-efficacy. Selfefficacy is defined by Bandura (1982) as an individual’s level of confidence performing
tasks successfully in a specific discipline. Conger and Kanungo (1992) went on to
explain empowerment as a process that moves through five stages. The process first
starts with the recognition that workers are in a state of psychological powerlessness.
Once this is recognized, management may utilize participative management techniques
and other strategies in the second stage in order to begin the process of empowering
workers. In stage three, self-efficacy information is communicated to employees, which
increases the confidence of the workers thereby strengthening performance expectations
and belief in personal efficacy (stage four). This fourth stage is an empowering
experience for the workers, which ultimately leads to behavioral changes in the
workforce (stage five).
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) propose a cognitive model of psychological
empowerment. In their theorizing, Thomas and Velthouse, like Conger and Kanungo
23
(1988), look at psychological empowerment as a motivational construct; however, they
incorporate the concept of intrinsic task motivation (Brief & Aldag, 1977). Intrinsic task
motivation is the positive affective cognition that results from performing a specific task.
The satisfaction that a worker experiences from completing the task motivates and drives
the behavior as opposed to external controls. Consequently, a worker assesses tasks
associated with the job in terms of the intrinsic rewards that he or she may expect to
receive from executing the task. Thomas and Velthouse identified four dimensions of
empowerment upon which this situational assessment is based. These four components
include impact, competence, meaningfulness, and choice. Impact is the degree to which
an individual perceives that his/her individual contributions truly “make a difference” in
the success of the organization. Competence is influenced by an employee’s confidence
in his/her ability to successfully perform the task. Meaningfulness relates to the
perceived value of the tasks and activities associated with a job. Finally, choice is
defined to involve “causal responsibility for a person’s actions” (Thomas & Velthouse,
1990, p. 673); the control of one’s own behavior is essential to intrinsic motivation
(deCharms, 1968 from Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). The Thomas and Velthouse (1990)
multi-dimensional conceptualization of psychological empowerment consisting of these
four (4) factors has been widely accepted by researchers and is the basis for the following
definition of psychological empowerment that will be utilized in the present study:
psychological empowerment is the “intrinsic motivation manifested in four cognitions,
[meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact], reflecting an individual’s
orientation to his or her work role” (Spreitzer, 1996, p. 484).
24
The theorizing of Thomas and Velthouse (1990) is the foundation upon which
Spreitzer (1995a) developed and validated an instrument to operationalize and measure
the four dimensions of psychological empowerment. Utilizing this instrument, Spreitzer
identified antecedents to psychological empowerment, including self-esteem, locus of
control, and access to information, as well as its impact on organizational outcomes,
including work satisfaction, job strain, and effectiveness (Spreitzer, 1995b; Spreitzer,
1996; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). The concept of psychological empowerment
attempts to identify the cognitions of organizational members that are critical to linking
management’s attempts to intrinsically motivate its members with organizational
effectiveness (Spreitzer, 1995b). Consequently, psychological empowerment operates at
the individual level and is related to the individual member’s perceived level of
autonomy and flexibility that he/she has in performing his/her job duties within the
organization. Empowerment involves employees taking the initiative to respond
autonomously to job related challenges with the encouragement and support of
management (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997). Thorlakson & Murray (1996) propose that
empowerment is a tool utilized by management that encourages workers to think outside
the defined structure of their job descriptions and to utilize their own judgment about the
requirements of the job. High levels of psychological empowerment may improve
organizational efficacy since employees that sense the existence of a high level of selfdetermination or choice in performing a task are more likely to feel empowered and to
initiate action in an effort to control or impact outcomes (Hancer & George, 2003). In a
hospitality environment, psychological empowerment has been positively associated with
25
the customer service level delivered by the firm since highly empowered hospitality
workers are more likely to respond appropriately to the unique, individual needs of
customers (Lashley, 2000; Brymer, 1991).
Specific research relative to psychological empowerment and its relationship with
leader- member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction, variables of interest in the present
study, has revealed the following:
•
Kim & George (2005) and Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe (2000) have
suggested that a positive relationship exists between LMX and
psychological empowerment.
•
Hechanova, Alampay, and Franco (2006) found that empowerment may
be positively correlated with job satisfaction and performance in a variety
of service sectors including hotels, food service, banking, call centers, and
airlines. Intrinsic motivation did not moderate the relationship between
empowerment and job satisfaction as predicted; however, it was associated
with higher levels of empowerment.
•
Carless (2004) found that psychological empowerment mediated the
relationship between psychological climate, which is defined as “how
organizational environments are perceived and interpreted by their
employees” (p. 406), and job satisfaction with meaning and competence
being the components that were largely responsible for this effect.
Seibert, Silver, & Randolph (2004) approached psychological
empowerment from the work-unit level versus the individual level. They
26
also found that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship
between climate and job satisfaction as well as job performance.
•
Research completed by Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, and Wilk (2004)
found that the level of perceived structural empowerment impacted
changes in job satisfaction in this longitudinal study; however, changes in
the level of psychological empowerment did not explain any additional
variance in job satisfaction. Larrabee, Janney, Ostrow, Withrow, Hobbs,
& Burant (2003) found that psychological empowerment is a predictor of
job satisfaction. Both of these studies included samples of nurses where
alternate employment opportunities abound and substantial research has
been conducted in an effort to improve nurse retention.
•
Hancer & George (2001) and Fulford & Enz (1995) found that restaurant
employees may experience psychological empowerment in terms of three
dimensions, versus the four dimensions identified by Thomas and
Velthouse (1990). These dimensions include meaning, competence, and
influence. Influence combines the two components identified by
Spreitzer (1996) as impact and self-determination. A positive relationship
was found to exist between psychological empowerment and job
satisfaction with influence being the strongest predictor of job satisfaction.
•
Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty (2000) developed an instrument that measures
the empowering behaviors of leaders based upon a six-dimensional model.
27
Psychological empowerment was found to mediate the relationship
between the empowering leader behavior and job satisfaction.
•
Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman (1999), in a study which included
technically skilled, professional, and managerial hospital employees,
found that empowerment perceptions were associated with increased
levels of job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. The perception of
empowerment also increased with tenure.
•
Fuller, Morrison, Jones, Bridger, & Brown (1999) found that
psychological empowerment moderated the relationship between
transformational leadership and job satisfaction.
•
Two of the four components of psychological empowerment, meaning and
self-determination, were shown to be positively related to job satisfaction
while competence and impact were found to be related to higher levels of
job effectiveness (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997).
VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Most turnover paradigms in place today are based upon a variety of models
developed in the 1970’s and 1980’s that attribute turnover to affective decisions related to
job satisfaction. Researchers focus on turnover intention since it is highly correlated with
actual employee turnover (Hwang & Kuo, 2006) and it has been determined that the
reasons provided by employees for voluntarily leaving their positions in post-exit
28
interviews are highly suspect (Steers and Mowday, 1984). Dissatisfaction with a job
initiates a cognitive withdrawal process, which may manifest itself in turnover intention
(Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2001). By analyzing the reasons for turnover intention,
researchers attempt to identify the specific variables related to job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction that may lead to employee turnover.
Porter & Steers (1973) developed a model in which they theorized that an
employee will develop an intention to quit if the employer fails to meet the expectations
of the employee relative to compensation, advancement opportunities, and other factors.
Over the next two decades, much of the turnover research resulted in extensions or
refinements to this satisfaction-focused core model (e.g. Price, 1977; Sheridan &
Abelson, 1983; Hom & Griffeth, 1991). As antecedents to job dissatisfaction, several
factors have been linked to turnover including repetitive work, pay, communication, and
co-worker relationships (Mitchell & Lee, 2001). In addition, several constructs including
job stress (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998), organizational justice (Greenberg, 1990), and
ambiguity (Bedian & Armenakis, 1998), just to name a few, have been linked to turnover
via job satisfaction.
In 1977, Mobley theorized that job dissatisfaction and actual turnover was
mediated by the search for alternate employment. Based upon Mobley’s theorizing, a
second component was added to most core models of turnover: employment search.
Muchinsky & Morrow (1980), Steers & Mowday (1981), Carsten & Spector (1987) and
others examined the importance of the employment market and perceived availability of
job alternatives in determining actual turnover. Blau (1994) proposed that the
29
employment search process occurred in two stages; the first stage involves preparatory
work and the second active search. Steel (2002) expanded on this temporal analysis of
the job search process concluding that the process evolves from passive scanning of
employment market information, to a focused search for concrete job prospects, and
finally to the actual contacting of potential employers. Through this process, the
employee receives feedback relative to their employability, which will ultimately
determine the employee’s ability to quit. Although job search has been identified as a
factor that may impact turnover intention, it is not a variable of interest in the present
study for a number of reasons: First, while job search serves as a predictor of voluntary
turnover, it cannot be assumed to be the cause of such intentions and it is likely that
dissatisfaction with the job precipitated the job search. In addition, the large majority of
workers in the context of this research are entry-level employees and job opportunities
for such employees are abundant in the job markets sampled. Consequently, a lack of
alternate employment opportunities is not likely to be an issue that might discourage
turnover should an associate not be satisfied with their current employment. Finally,
while other factors may encourage workers to leave their jobs voluntarily despite being
satisfied with their employer, job satisfaction has demonstrated a consistent, inverse
relationship with turnover intent, which has been thoroughly investigated in the literature
(Hwang & Kuo, 2006).
It should be noted that the decision to voluntarily terminate an employment
relationship is complex. It is impacted by a wide variety of factors, many of which are
non-attitudinal or not related to the job or work environment itself (Morrow et al, 2005;
30
Mitchell & Lee, 2001); this results in the explained variation, due to its relationship with
job satisfaction, being small. Despite efforts to identify other constructs that may have
increased explanatory power, such as job embeddedness, as theorized by Mitchell and
Lee (2001), job satisfaction remains the most explicative antecedent of turnover. In
addition, it should be noted that turnover intention is utilized in the present research since
it has been empirically validated to have a positive correlation with actual employee
turnover and has been generally accepted by researchers as the final cognitive step in an
employee’s decision to voluntarily leave a job (Hwang & Kuo, 2006; Lambert, Hogan &
Barton, 2001; Steers & Mowday, 1984).
Within the context of the hospitality industry, antecedents of turnover are of great
interest to researchers and practitioners alike since the cost of turnover is substantial,
potentially costing employers thousands of dollars per employee lost (Hinkin & Tracey,
2000). A number of researchers have studied voluntary employee turnover within a
hospitality setting. Wildes (2005) identified that the negative image or stigma associated
with restaurant employment contributes to high turnover levels within the industry.
Wildes also found that a relationship may exist between age and turnover intention with
younger workers being more likely to be formulating plans to leave the restaurant
industry in the near term. A study with a sample of restaurant managers by Ghiselli, La
Lopa and Bai (2001) also finds that the industry may be struggling to retain workers as
they age. In addition, this study indicates that a manager’s level of intrinsic job
satisfaction and life satisfaction may be reliable predictors of turnover intent. Milman
and Ricci (2004) found that retention of hourly employees in the lodging industry may be
31
related to self-fulfillment and working conditions as opposed to monetary rewards. A
study looking at the turnover cognitions of hotel managers reveals that affective and
psychological perceptions are predictive of turnover intentions including job satisfaction
and perceived managerial competence (Carbery, Garava, O’Brien, & McDonnell, 2003).
Gustafson (2002) found that turnover in clubs is related to conflicts with supervision and
that, by working side-by-side with club employees on a regular basis, managers can
possibly lower the level of employee turnover; this finding supports the notion that the
quality of the LMX relationship may be related to employee turnover.
HYPOTHESES
Based upon a review of the literature, the following hypotheses are proposed
between the constructs as illustrated in Figure 2.2.
32
Figure 2.2: Illustration of the Relationships among Variables with Hypotheses
Identified
H1: The quality of the LMX relationship, as perceived by a subordinate and
measured by the three dimensions of respect, trust, and obligation, will be directly
related to the level psychological empowerment.
Consistent with research conducted by Kim & George (2005), Wat & Shaffer
(2005), Gomez & Rosen (2001), and Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe (2000), a positive
relationship is expected to exist between LMX and psychological empowerment.
H2: The quality of the LMX relationship, as perceived by a subordinate and
measured by the three dimensions of respect, trust, and obligation, will be directly
related to the level of job satisfaction.
This hypothesis is supported by several researchers including Stringer (2006) as
well as Gerstner and Day (1997) and Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp (1982).
33
H3: Psychological empowerment, measured in terms of four dimensions of
meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact, will be positively related to
job satisfaction.
Psychological empowerment has been shown to have a positive relationship to job
satisfaction by a host of researchers (Hechanova, Alampay, & Franco, 2006; Seibert,
Silver, & Randolph, 2004; Larrabee, Janney, Ostrow, Withrow, Hobbs, & Burant, 2003;
Hancer & George, 2001; Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty, 2000; Koberg, Boss, Senjem, &
Goodman, 1999; Fuller, Morrison, Jones, Bridger, & Brown, 1999).
H4: The relationship between the quality of the LMX relationship, as perceived
by a subordinate and measured by the three dimensions of respect, trust, and
obligation, and turnover intention will be curvilinear (U-shaped) with a moderate
quality level producing the lowest level of turnover intention and low or high
quality exchanges generating relatively higher levels of turnover intention.
The relationship between LMX and turnover intention requires additional
clarification. Some researchers have identified a weak, linear relationship between the
constructs (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Graen, Hoel, & Liden,
1982). More recently, however, a curvilinear relationship has been suggested (Morrow,
Suzuki, Crum, Reuben, & Pautsch, 2005; Harris, Kacmar, & Witt, 2005). It may be
reasonable to expect that increased turnover intention will be found among employees
with either a low quality or high quality LMX relationship while those with a more
moderate LMX relationship may be less inclined to develop turnover intentions. While
high turnover intention among subordinates reporting low quality LMX relationship may
34
be more easily understood, why higher turnover intention might be expected with
employees reporting a high quality LMX may be less clear; however, as reasoned by
Morrow et al (2005), individuals with a high quality LMX may be more marketable due
to increased training received from their supervisor. They may also be more likely to
perceive that they are adequately prepared to advance their careers and to expect that they
will to be able to replicate their LMX relationship with a new supervisor in other
contexts.
H5: Psychological empowerment, measured utilizing the four dimensions of
meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact, will be negatively related
to turnover intention.
The decision to voluntarily leave a job is complex, which results in a small
portion of the variance in turnover intention being explained by any single variable.
Although the level of job satisfaction has been consistently linked to turnover intention, it
is not uncommon for someone that is satisfied with their job to voluntarily sever their
employment relationship (Morrow et al, 2005; Mitchell & Lee, 2001). Despite an
exhaustive search in the literature, a study proposing a direct, negative relationship
between psychological empowerment and turnover intention could not be found; it is
typically proposed that the relationship between these constructs is mediated by a
variable such as job satisfaction (Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman; 1999). It is
anticipated in the present research that employees will be less likely to harbor turnover
intentions if they perceive a higher level of self-determination and meaning, two of the
dimensions of psychological empowerment, in their job.
35
H6: Turnover intention will be negatively related to job satisfaction.
An inverse relationship has been consistently identified to exist between job
satisfaction and turnover intention, although the explained variation due to this
relationship has been small due to the complexity of the decision to vacate a job (Hwang
& Kuo, 2006; Lambert, Hogan & Barton, 2001; Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Sheridan &
Abelson, 1983; Price, 1977).
CHAPTER SUMMARY
In summary, achieving a high level of job satisfaction among employees is an
important business objective since it may positively impact organizational efficacy,
including customer satisfaction, and lower turnover intention. Job satisfaction benefits a
large segment of society since most members of our society are engaged in an
employment relationship. While addressing hygiene factors, which include supervision,
interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, salary, company policies and
administrative practices, benefits, and job security, may prevent job dissatisfaction,
successfully addressing these aspects of a job will not drive job satisfaction. Intrinsic or
motivational variables, which include achievement, recognition, responsibility,
advancement, and the work itself, determine the level of job satisfaction that a worker
derives from a job (Herzberg et al, 1959). The level of psychological empowerment
perceived by an employee may be positively associated with these motivational variables
since empowerment is a positive affective cognition that is determined by the intrinsic
36
task motivation associated with a job relative to four dimensions, which include meaning,
competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995b; Thomas & Velthouse,
1990). Leader-member exchange (LMX) is a leadership framework that assesses the
quality of the relationship between a leader and a subordinate based upon the dimensions
of respect, trust, and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995); the quality of this relationship
may impact the level of psychological empowerment perceived by the employee since
psychological empowerment includes a relational element in addition to the motivational
component. Consequently, six (6) hypotheses have been proposed in the present
research, which outline the anticipated relationships between the constructs of interest in
this study.
SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS
In Chapter 3, a detailed outline of the proposed research methodology is provided. This
includes a description of the sample and data collection process, the identification of the
dependent and independent variables, descriptions of the instruments that will be utilized
to measure the variables of interest, as well as an outline of the statistical techniques that
will be utilized to analyze the data.
37
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
This study examines the relationship between Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
and psychological empowerment on the individual level. It also looks at the relationship
between each of these variables and individual job satisfaction. Finally, it examines the
impact of these three variables — LMX, psychological empowerment, and job
satisfaction — on an individual’s turnover intention. Each of these variables was
measured utilizing standardized, close-ended questions, which were presented to
supervisory and non-supervisory employees in a casual, limited-service restaurant
environment through the administration of an on-line survey. Principle component
analysis was used to identify the dimensions of LMX, psychological empowerment, and
job satisfaction. Descriptive statistics and reliabilities were calculated for each of the
composite variables and correlation analysis was utilized to identify the relationships
between the constructs. A covariance matrix was calculated for all survey items in order
38
to facilitate the structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling was utilized
to test the six hypotheses proposed in the model utilizing a latent variable model.
SAMPLE
Associates employed by an operator of upscale, limited-service restaurants were
invited to complete the on-line survey during the month of January 2007. The host firm
employs more than 1,800 full and part-time associates and operates over 50 outlets with
two-thirds of the restaurants located in the Midwestern United States and the remaining
one-third located in the Western United States. The restaurants are located in three large
metropolitan areas and two mid-sized, secondary markets within these two geographic
regions. Store locations vary ranging from mall locations in large upscale, shopping
malls and specialty store “strip centers” to free-standing suburban and office park
locations. The company also operates a handful of outlets (3) in urban locations without
parking. Each outlet operates from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m., with some minor variation by
location, seven days per week and is staffed with one General Manager and two Assistant
Managers; training locations, which are typically high-volume stores, are staffed with one
additional Assistant Manager. Each location employs approximately thirty (30)
associates with over fifty percent (50.0%) being employed on a part-time basis. The
restaurant environment is upscale, with classical music and an inviting atmosphere.
Counter service is offered. The food is prepared on-premises, to-order and is moderately
priced.
39
DATA COLLECTION
Upon receiving approval of The Ohio State University Human Subjects Review
Committee, an on-line survey was made available to all associates of the host firm. An
email was sent to the General Manager of each store location from the company’s
President encouraging each manager to maximize employee participation in the survey.
The email stressed the confidentiality of the survey process noting that all results would
only be reported back to the organization in aggregate with other employee responses, in
order to reduce response bias and to maximize participation. In addition, demographic
data was collected utilizing categorical variables for age and tenure since this has been
shown to reduce response bias since participants perceive that this increases the
anonymity of their responses (Giles & Field, 1978). Participation was encouraged by
organizational leadership due to their desire to learn more about the antecedents of
turnover within their firm. Consequently, no inducements were offered to encourage
participation. The survey was available from January 3, 2007 through January 31, 2007;
each week, the number of responses-to-date was communicated to the company’s
President so that a follow-up email could be sent to the General Managers in an effort to
encourage additional participation. The emails included a link to the survey instrument,
which is hosted by Vovici (www.websurveyor.net). Sample emails may be found in
Appendix A. Employees were provided with time, while at work, to complete the survey
utilizing a company computer in a confidential setting. In addition to collecting
40
demographic information, the survey included a validated, reliable instrument to measure
each of the various constructs of interest in the study; these instruments are detailed later
in this chapter. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix B.
VARIABLES OF INTEREST
The latent variables of interest for the present research are identified as follows:
1. Psychological empowerment and the three (3) dimensions of
psychological empowerment, meaning, competence, and influence, as
identified by the principle component analysis
2. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
3. Job satisfaction, including the dimensions of relational, intrinsic, and
extrinsic satisfaction
4. Turnover intention
It should be noted that the specific dimensions associated with each of the four (4)
primary latent variables are outlined as determined by a principle component analysis, the
results of which are outlined in Chapter 4, which was conducted in order to identify the
factor structure with the present research sample.
The demographics of interest in the present research are as follows:
1. Gender
2. Age
3. Level of education
41
4. Job tenure
5. Industry tenure
6. Employment status (full- versus part-time)
7. Job function
8. Native language
INSTRUMENTATION
The instruments utilized to measure each of the constructs are well-tested, valid
and reliable instruments that have been used extensively by researchers to measure the
constructs of interest in the present study. They include the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire Short Form Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), the LMX-7
(Graen, Novak, & Soomerkamp, 1982), and Spreitzer’s (1992) instrument to measure
psychological empowerment. Turnover intention is measured utilizing items derived
from Mitchel’s (1981) turnover study.
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION
Twenty (20) items associated with the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
Short-Form (Weiss, Dawis, England & Lofquist, 1967) were utilized to measure job
satisfaction. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) measures intrinsic,
extrinsic, and general job satisfaction levels on a five-point Likert-type scale with the
42
ratings being defined as follows: 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 =
satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied. The mean score on six (6) of the items provides an
individual’s extrinsic job satisfaction score, while twelve (12) items are utilized to
measure intrinsic job satisfaction. General satisfaction is measured by calculating the
mean score on all twenty (20) items, which will include the two remaining items.
Consistent with Locke’s (1976) theorizing, weighting of job satisfaction item responses
based upon the relative importance of the item to the individual is not necessary since this
value judgment is implicit in the response; this position has been supported by several
researchers (Staples & Higgins, 1998; Rice, Gentile, & McFarlin, 1991; Quinn &
Mangione, 1973).
The MSQ Short-Form has been used extensively by researchers and found to be
valid and reliable. In a recent study which utilized the MSQ Short-Form with a sample of
restaurant employees, Hancer & George (2001) found Cronbach alpha values of .87 for
general job satisfaction, .86 for intrinsic job satisfaction, and .90 for extrinsic job
satisfaction. In addition, a principal component analysis utilizing varimax rotation
revealed a four-dimension factor structure for the MSQ Short Form versus the twodimension structure obtained by Weiss et al (1967). Consequently, the factor structure of
the MSQ was analyzed with the present research sample following the recommendation
of Hancer & George (2004).
43
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX)
The LMX-7 has been identified as the preferred instrument to be utilized to
measure the perceived level of respect, trust, and obligation, the three dimensions of
LMX, between a leader and a member (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This instrument
assesses the quality of the dyadic exchange relationship between a member and leader,
from either’s perspective, in terms of these three dimensions. There are two-items for
each dimension as well as an overall assessment of the relationship. A five-point Likerttype scale is utilized to rate each item with higher scores representing a higher quality
relationship. In another study that included a sample of restaurant employees, the
Cronbach’s alpha measure of reliability for this instrument was .902 (Kim & George,
2005). In the study conducted by Kim & George, principle component analysis utilizing
varimax rotation revealed a singular structure versus the three-dimensional structure
suggested by Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995). Once again, the factor structure was analyzed in
the context of the present research to determine the structure for the present sample of
restaurant employees for the LMX-7.
44
PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT
A psychological empowerment measurement instrument originally designed by
Spreitzer (1992) was also included in the survey. These twelve items are utilized to
measure the four dimensions of psychological empowerment of meaning, competence,
self-determination, and impact—three items per dimension. A seven-point scale is
utilized for the psychological empowerment survey questions with the ratings being
defined as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 =
neutral, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = agree, and 7 = strongly agree. This instrument has also
been previously utilized to evaluate the level of psychological empowerment with a
similar sample of restaurant employees. Hancer and George (2001) found that restaurant
employees may experience psychological empowerment in terms of three dimensions—
meaning, competence, and influence—as opposed to the four intended dimensions.
Influence combines the two components identified by Spreitzer (1996) as impact and
self-determination. Kim and George (2005) also identified fewer than four dimensions
when working with restaurant workers; their analysis, when utilizing the Spreitzer (1992)
instrument, identified two factors, which they labeled as influence and attitude.
45
TURNOVER INTENTION
A four-item measure of turnover intention derived from Mitchel’s (1981) turnover
study in a service industry was also utilized. A five-point scale was utilized to measure
employee response to the items with a response of one (1) equivalent to “not accurate at
all” and five (5) equivalent to “extremely accurate”; three of the four items are reverse
scored so that higher scores indicate an increased intention to leave the employment
relationship. A sample item is as follows: “I plan to be with the company quite a while.”
A Cronbach’s alpha of .81 was achieved, utilizing the Mitchel (1981) turnover intention
instrument, with a group of retail managers (Good, Sisler, & Gentry, 1988).
DEMOGRAPHICS
The following demographic information was obtained from the respondents:
gender, age (18 – 24, 25 – 34, 45 – 54, 55 – 64, 65 or older), highest level of education
(did not complete high school or GED, high school graduate, some college/technical
school, college graduate, graduate degree, other), job tenure (3 months or less, more than
3 months but less than one year, 1 – 3 years, 3 – 5 years, 5 – 10 years, 10 years or more),
industry tenure (3 months or less, more than 3 months but less than one year, 1 – 3 years,
3 – 5 years, 5 – 10 years, 10 years or more), employment status (full-time, part-time,
seasonal), job function (hourly employee, hourly supervisor, salaried manager, other),
46
and native language (English, Spanish, rather not say, other). Categorical variables were
utilized relative to age as well as with job and industry tenures in an effort to reduce
response bias consistent with the findings of Giles and Field (1978), which identified that
respondents rated job satisfaction more favorably when continuous variables versus
categorical variables were utilized to record demographic information including age.
DATA ANALYSIS
SPSS version 13.0 for Windows, developed by Apache Software Foundation, was
utilized to execute the following statistical analyses: Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to
confirm the reliability of each survey instrument. In addition, Principle Component
Analysis utilizing varimax rotation, was used to determine the factor structure of each of
the constructs of interest—job satisfaction, LMX, and psychological empowerment.
Descriptive statistics were calculated for each variable and/or dimension of each variable
measured. Correlation analysis was utilized to identify the nature of the relationships
between each of the variables and ANOVA to determine if between group differences,
based upon demographics (gender, age, tenure, and employment status), existed.
Utilizing a covariance table from SPSS version 13.0 for Windows, LISREL 8.8, from
Scientific Software International, was utilized to test the proposed hypotheses and the
latent variable model (see figure 2.2, p. 27). Appropriate figures, tables, and narrative are
included in Chapter 4 to explain the results of the analysis. A discussion of the results
follows in Chapter 5.
47
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter outlines the research findings. First, the demographics of the
respondents are identified. This is followed by analyses of the factor structures of the
instruments utilized to measure job satisfaction, Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), and
psychological empowerment. Next, analysis of variance (ANOVA) is utilized to test for
significant differences between the various demographic variables including age, gender,
job function, and the level of education. Bi-variate correlation as well as structural
equation modeling, is then utilized to test the six proposed research hypotheses and latent
variable model. To test the proposed curvilinear relationship between LMX and turnover
intention, regression is utilized.
RESPONDENTS
The respondents are all employed by a firm, which operates upscale, limitedservice restaurants in two mid-western and one western state. Over eighty percent
(83.6%) of the respondents are under 34 years of age with 66.5% between the ages of
48
eighteen and twenty-four (18 – 24). Over fifty percent (54.6%) have been employed with
the firm for less than one year with thirteen percent (13.3%) having been employed less
than three (3) months. Only twenty-three percent (23.0%) of the respondents have
worked for less than one year in the restaurant, retail, or food-service industry; this
indicates that at least fifty-seven percent (57.6%) of the respondents with less than one
year’s tenure with this firm have worked for other employers in the industry despite the
young age of the firm’s associates. Nearly forty percent (38.8%) of the firm’s workforce
is employed on a full-time basis and over fifty-seven percent (57.3%) of the workers are
women. Just over eight percent (8.1%) of respondents identified themselves as salaried
managers or administrative employees. Nearly twenty-one percent (20.9%) of workers
indicated that they are involved in food production, which indicates that direct customer
interaction is the focus of approximately seventy percent of the firm’s associates.
Chi-square (X2) testing was utilized to compare the demographics of the
respondents with the restaurant industry as a whole relative to age, gender, and level of
education. Higher chi-square values indicate a higher level of statistical significance with
values over fifteen (15) equating to a p-value of 0.01 or less for the data presented.
Industry data was obtained from the National Restaurant Association’s website
(www.restaurant.org) and is based upon 2004 survey data. Overall, respondents from the
participating firm are younger than workers found in eating and drinking establishments
nationwide. The breakdown by age group for the respondents versus the industry is
outlined in table 4.1.
49
Age range
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 44
45 – 54
55 – 64
65+
Respondents Industry
%
%
66%
47%
17%
21%
10%
16%
4%
10%
2%
5%
1%
2%
Total
100%
100%
X2
202.06*
* p < .01
Table 4.1: Respondents: Age
Just over fifty-seven percent (57.5%) of the respondents are female, versus 53%
for the industry, which is not a statistically significant difference (X2 = 9.68). In addition,
workers representing the participating firm have a higher level of education with a higher
percentage of workers having completed at least some college level coursework.
Level of Education
High school not completed
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
Graduate degree
Total**
* p < .01
Respondents Industry
%
%
9%
32%
31%
33%
44%
22%
14%
13%
2%
1%
100%
101%
X2
401.31*
Table 4.2: Respondents: Level of Education
**Note: Respondent statistics adjusted to match industry data available by removing
“other” category.
50
Restaurant workers average twenty-five (25) hours per week with one-in-two nonsupervisory workers working part-time. Sixty-one percent (60.9%) of the respondents
are employed part-time and nearly sixty-seven percent (66.5%) are part-time after
deducting the number of salaried managers and administrative respondents from the total
number of full-time respondents. Consequently, the proportion of part-time employees
exceeds industry norms (X2 = 120.0, p < .01).
TYPICAL RESPONDENT
Based upon these demographics, the typical respondent is between the ages of
eighteen and twenty-four (18 – 24) years-of-age and has been employed with the firm
less than one year, although they are most likely to have between one and three (1 – 3)
years experience in the restaurant or retail industry. They typically are high school
graduates that have received some post-secondary education, although they have not
completed a college degree, and are working with the firm on a part-time basis. They are
most likely to be female.
NON-RESPONDENTS
The participating firm employs approximately one-thousand-eight-hundred
(1,800) associates. All associates were to be offered the opportunity to complete the
survey. The survey was accessed online one-thousand-six-hundred-ninety-one (1,691)
51
times with one-thousand-two-hundred-fourteen (1,214) surveys submitted, which
represents nearly a seventy-two percent (71.8%) completion rate. One-hundred-eightytwo (182) of the respondents were under eighteen (18) years-of-age; these responses were
not retained, as specified on The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board (IRB)
application, since parental permission was not sought to include these surveys.
Consequently, the present research is based upon one-thousand-twenty-five (1,025)
usable responses. This represents approximately fifty-seven percent (56.9%) of the
firm’s eighteen-hundred (1,800) associates. In reviewing the number of responses per
restaurant, the number of responses ranged from two to forty-three (2 – 43) with a mean
number of responses of nineteen (18.9), including the one-hundred-eighty-two (182)
responses that were eliminated. With eighteen-hundred (1,800) total employees, the firm
employs approximately twenty-nine (28.6) associates per outlet on average, including an
allocation of corporate employees, since there are sixty-three (63) restaurants operated by
the firm. Therefore, the per unit response rate is sixty-six percent (66.0%). Although
some individual unit managers may perceive that it is in their best interest to ensure a
positive response from their employees, which would result in a positive response bias,
appropriate instructions were provided and confidentiality of the responses were ensured,
in order to minimize such a bias. In addition, the total number of responses received and
utilized in this research as a proportion of the total number of individuals employed by
the firm is large enough (56.9%) to assume that any positive response bias is minimal.
52
FACTOR ANALYSIS
JOB SATISFACTION – MINNESOTA SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Although originally developed to load on two factors, extrinsic and intrinsic
dimensions, occupational differences have been found by various researchers when
utilizing the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al, 1967). Utilizing SPSS,
version 13, principle component analysis was utilized to determine the factor structure for
the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) in the context of the present research.
A three-factor structure converged after six iterations utilizing varimax rotation. The
correlation matrix for the twenty (20) items included in the MSQ, as well as the factor
loadings and eigenvalues, can be found in tables 4.3 and 4.4. In addition to examining
the scree plots, factors with initial eigenvalues in excess of one (1.0) were retained. The
first factor includes items related primarily to human relationships within the work
setting, including supervision from two perspectives and one’s relationships with coworkers, as well as working conditions, recognition, and moral values. Consequently, the
first factor is labeled relational in the present research. The ten (10) items that load on
the second factor were each originally labeled as intrinsic factors so the intrinsic label
will be retained for the second factor. Three (3) of the four (4) items that load on the
third factor, compensation, advancement, and company policies and practices, were
originally labeled as extrinsic factors. Therefore, the extrinsic label will be utilized for
53
this factor. In working in a similar context, Hancer and George (2001) found a four
factor structure when utilizing the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short-form).
Only the first factor in the present research is consistent with this earlier research; both
analyses identify the same six items as being included in factor one, although Hancer and
George (2001) included a seventh item, compensation, in factor one (1). Considerable
differences are found with the additional factors.
54
55
Table 4.3: Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short-form): Correlation Matrix
Continued
56
Table 4.3 continued
MSQ
Item
MSQ
Scale Items
Factor Loadings
Factor
I
Factor
II
Factor
III
Original
Scale
Communality
6
Supervision – technical
.79
.19
.15
Extrinsic
.69
5
Supervision – human relations
.76
.09
.27
Extrinsic
.65
17
Working conditions
.72
.21
.25
General
.62
18
Co-workers
.61
.21
.10
General
.43
19
Recognition
.57
.15
.51
Extrinsic
.61
7
Moral values
.56
.45
.06
Intrinsic
.51
1
Activity
.26
.69
-.05
Intrinsic
.55
2
Independence
.12
.66
.06
Intrinsic
.45
9
Social service
.23
.61
.32
Intrinsic
.53
10
Authority
.04
.61
.25
Intrinsic
.44
11
Ability utilization
.15
.57
.49
Intrinsic
.59
4
Social status
.27
.54
.43
Intrinsic
.55
3
Variety
.20
.52
.30
Intrinsic
.40
15
Responsibility
.40
.51
.33
Intrinsic
.52
16
Creativity
.43
.44
.30
Intrinsic
.47
Security
.30
.41
.35
Intrinsic
.38
13
Compensation
.20
.09
.77
Extrinsic
.65
14
Advancement
.17
.33
.72
Extrinsic
.66
20
Achievement
.41
.42
.56
Intrinsic
.65
12
Company policies & practices
.49
.17
.55
Extrinsic
.57
8.39
41.95
41.95
1.44
7.20
49.15
1.07
5.33
54.47
8
Eigenvalue
Percent of total variance explained
Cumulative variance explained
Table 4.4: Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short-form) Factor Loadings
and Eigenvalues
57
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX) - LMX-7
Principle component analysis for the LMX-7 failed to identify a factor structure,
which is consistent with the findings of Kim and George (2003) as well as Hancer and
George (2001). Consequently, this construct will not be considered as a multidimensional construct in the present research.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT – SPREITZER 12-ITEM SCALE
Principle component analysis, utilizing SPSS, version 13, which included the
twelve (12) survey items measuring psychological empowerment based upon Spreitzer
(1992), identified a three (3) factor structure. The Spreitzer (1992) instrument was
designed to measure four dimensions of psychological empowerment, which includes
meaning, competence, impact, and self-determination. In the present research, the first
factor, labeled influence, combines the impact and self-determination items. The second
factor, consistent with Spreitzer (1992), includes the three items intended to measure
meaning. And the third factor includes the three items that target competence. This
factor structure is consistent with research conducted by Hancer and George (2001) in a
restaurant setting. The correlation matrix, factor loadings, and eigenvalues can be found
in tables 4.5 and 4.6.
58
Psychological
Empowerment Scale
1. My work is very
important to me.
2. I am confident
about my ability to do
my job.
3. My opinion counts
in work group
decision-making.
4. I have the chance
to use personal
initiative in my work.
5. My job activities
are meaningful to me.
6. My job is well
within the scope of my
abilities.
7. I decide on how to
go about doing my
work.
8. I care about what I
do on my job.
9. I have a great deal
of control over my
job.
10. I have mastered
the skills to do my job.
11. I have freedom in
determining how to do
my job.
12. I have influence
over what happens in
my work group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.00
.33
1.00
.43
.33
1.00
.48
.40
.62
1.00
.70
.32
.53
.55
1.00
.23
.36
.24
.32
.28
1.00
.37
.37
.48
.56
.50
.34
1.00
.72
.42
.43
.49
.69
.29
.45
1.00
.46
.31
.55
.57
.56
.25
.64
.50
1.00
.19
.53
.18
.22
.16
.26
.27
.24
.23
1.00
.34
.31
.50
.59
.46
.25
.68
.39
.66
.26
1.00
.36
.31
.67
.56
.50
.30
.56
.43
.60
.23
.65
Table 4.5: Psychological Empowerment Instrument: Correlation Matrix
59
1.00
Psychological
Empowerment
Item
11
12
9
7
3
4
1
8
5
10
2
6
Scale Items
I have freedom in
determining how to do my
job.
I have influence over what
happens in my work group.
I have a great deal of control
over my job.
I decide on how to go about
doing my work.
My opinion counts in work
group decision-making.
I have a chance to use
personal initiative in my
work.
Factor Loadings
Factor
I
Factor
II
Factor
III
.84
.11
.18
.81
.18
.15
.75
.32
.74
.19
.75
Impact
.71
Impact
.13
.69
Self-determination
.27
.66
Impact
.70
.32
.10
.67
.37
.22
.21
.88
.14
.60
Self-determination
.27
.82
.24
My job activities are
meaningful to me.
.43
.77
.09
.11
.01
.83
Eigenvalue
Percent of total variance explained
Cumulative variance explained
Communality
Self-determination
My work is very important
to me.
I care about what I do on my
job.
I have mastered the skills to
do my job.
I am confident about my
ability to do my job.
My job is well within the
scope of my abilities.
Original scale
.63
Meaning
.83
Meaning
.80
Meaning
.79
Competence
.71
Competence
.18
.25
.79
.22
.15
.57
5.82
48.46
48.46
1.29
10.75
59.21
1.16
9.70
68.91
.71
Competence
.39
Table 4.6: Psychological Empowerment Factor Loadings and Eigenvalues
60
MEAN SCORES AND INSTRUMENT RELIABILITY
Table 4.7 provides the mean, standard deviation, error variance, and Cronbach’s
alpha for each construct and dimension. Overall, the instruments proved to be quite
reliable in measuring the constructs and their dimensions with Cronbach’s alpha values in
excess of eight-tenths (0.80) for eight (8) of ten (10) variables. The measure of turnover
intention is also reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of seventy-six hundredths (0.76). The
measure of the competence dimension of psychological empowerment may be somewhat
suspect with an internal reliability measure of sixty-two hundredths (0.62).
61
Construct or Dimension
Leader-Member Exchange*
Psychological Empowerment**
Influence**
Meaning**
Competence**
Job Satisfaction*
Relational*
Intrinsic*
Extrinsic*
Turnover Intention*
Mean
3.65
5.61
5.27
5.64
6.25
3.73
3.84
3.80
3.30
2.99
Standard
Deviation
0.83
0.96
1.22
1.26
0.83
0.65
0.77
0.64
0.90
0.91
Standard
Error
0.026
0.030
0.038
0.039
0.026
0.020
0.024
0.020
0.028
0.028
Cronbach’s
Alpha
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.87
0.62
0.93
0.84
0.86
0.80
0.76
* 5-point Likert-type scale
** 7-point Likert-type scale
Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics and Reliability
BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES
SPSS, version 13, was utilized to conduct one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to compare means for each of the constructs between different demographic
groups. If statistically significant differences were identified, ninety-five percent (95.0%)
confidence intervals were calculated to determine the groups between which the
differences are found for the significant variables. The following demographic variables
were considered: gender, age, employment tenure with the participating firm, industry
tenure, employment status (full- versus part-time), and job function (salaried
management/administrative versus hourly).
62
BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES - GENDER
ANOVA reveals that statistically significant gender differences exist (see table
4.8) relative to the level of job satisfaction (F = 6.33, p =.01), specifically relative to the
“intrinsic” (F = 7.83, p = .01) and “extrinsic” (F = 7.12, p = .01) dimensions of job
satisfaction as opposed to the “relational” (F = 1.09, p = .30) where a significant
difference was not identified. Table 4.9 outlines point estimates, 95% confidence
intervals, and standard deviations for the latent variables for which significant differences
exist. In general, female employees are more satisfied with their jobs. Statistically
significant differences were also found relative to psychological empowerment (F =
12.12, p < .01) due to the dimensions of “meaning” (F = 26.37, p < .01) and
“competence” (F = 9.17, p < .01), which reveals that female associates of the firm
perceive that their work is more meaningful on average and they perceive themselves as
more competent in their abilities than their male co-workers. This results in an overall
feeling of being more psychologically empowered despite the fact that they do not
perceive that they have any more influence (F = 3.19, p = .08) in the work environment.
Finally, it should be noted that women may feel that they have a better relationship with
their organizational leaders (LMX) than their male counterparts (F = 3.78, p = .05).
Turnover intentions are not significantly different for female versus male associates. The
effect size of gender on the mean score is estimated through the calculation of Etasquared (η2), which is displayed in table 4.10 and indicates the proportion of total
63
variance attributable to gender. The effect of gender on each of the variables is negligible
in all cases, accounting for 2.5% of the variance or less in each case.
Sum of
squares
Relationship
Leader-Member
Exchange X gender
Psychological
empowerment
X gender
Influence X gender
Meaning X gender
Competence X
gender
Job Satisfaction
X gender
Relations X gender
Intrinsic X gender
Extrinsic X gender
Turnover Intention
X gender
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
2.57
689.63
692.20
11.02
922.48
933.50
4.70
1494.26
1498.95
40.56
1559.78
1600.34
6.27
692.69
698.96
2.62
420.12
422.74
0.645
601.04
601.68
3.16
409.67
412.83
11.02
922.4
933.50
1.174
835.81
836.98
Degrees of
freedom
Mean
square
1
1014
1015
1
1014
1015
1
1014
1015
1
1014
1015
1
1013
1014
1
1015
1016
1
1015
1016
1
1015
1016
1
1015
1016
1
1014
1015
2.57
0.68
Fstatistic
3.78
Significance
11.02
0.91
12.12
.00
4.70
1.47
3.186
.08
40.56
1.54
26.37
.00
6.27
0.68
9.17
.00
2.62
0.41
6.33
.01
0.65
0.59
1.09
.30
3.16
0.40
7.83
.01
5.68
0.80
7.12
.01
1.17
0.82
1.42
.23
Table 4.8: Analysis of Variance: Between Group Differences X Gender
64
.05
N
Leader-member exchange
Female
577
Male
439
Psychological empowerment
Female
576
Male
440
Meaning
Female
576
Male
440
Competence
Female
576
Male
439
Job Satisfaction
Female
577
Male
440
Intrinsic satisfaction
Female
577
Male
440
Extrinsic satisfaction
Female
577
Male
440
Turnover Intention
Female
576
Male
440
Standard
Deviation
Point estimate
95% confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
3.70
3.59
0.80
0.85
3.63
3.51
3.76
3.67
5.70
5.49
0.89
1.03
5.62
5.39
5.77
5.58
5.81
5.41
1.08
1.42
5.73
5.28
5.90
5.54
6.31
6.15
0.75
0.92
6.25
6.07
6.37
6.24
3.78
3.68
0.62
0.68
3.73
3.62
3.83
3.74
3.85
3.74
0.61
0.67
3.80
3.84
3.90
3.80
3.37
3.22
0.87
0.93
3.30
3.13
3.44
3.31
2.96
3.03
0.90
0.92
2.88
2.93
3.03
3.11
Table 4.9: Gender Differences: Estimates of the Mean Scores
65
Relationship
Leader-Member Exchange X gender
Psychological empowerment X gender
Influence X gender
Meaning X gender
Competence X gender
Job Satisfaction X gender
Relations X gender
Intrinsic X gender
Extrinsic X gender
Turnover Intention X gender
Table 4.10: Effect Size of Gender
66
η2
.004
.012
.003
.025
.009
.006
.001
.008
.007
.001
BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES – AGE
Statistically significant differences in mean scores, based upon age, were found in
the areas of psychological empowerment (F = 14.49, p < .00), influence (F = 2.97, p =
.01), meaning (F = 14.49, p < .01), job satisfaction (F = 5.17, p < .01), intrinsic (F = 9.07,
p < .01), extrinsic (F = 5.17, p < .01), and turnover intention (F = 15.54, p < .01). Age
had the most substantial impact on turnover intention, explaining 7.1% of the variance in
the mean score, the meaning dimension of psychological empowerment (η2 = .067), and
intrinsic job satisfaction (η2 = .043) as outlined in table 4.13.
Workers between the ages of thirty-five (35) and forty-four (44) years-of-age
have a higher mean score in psychological empowerment, meaning, job satisfaction, and
intrinsic job satisfaction, as well as lower turnover intentions than workers between the
ages of eighteen (18) and thirty-four (34) years-of-age (see table 4.12). Thirty-five (35)
to forty-four (44) year-old-workers also have a higher extrinsic job satisfaction mean
score than workers between the ages of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) years-of-age.
Due to the small number of respondents that are forty-five (45) years-of-age and over, the
ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals for the categories of forty-five to fiftyfour years-of-age (45 – 54), fifty-five to sixty-four years-of-age (55 – 64), and over sixtyfive years-of-age (65+) are quite wide. Consequently, it cannot be confirmed that
significant differences exist between the mean scores of employees under thirty-four (34)
years-of-age and all workers over thirty-five (35) years-of-age based upon the sample
data collected.
67
Relationship
Leader-Member
Exchange X age
Psychological
empowerment
X age
Influence X age
Meaning X age
Competence X
age
Job satisfaction
X age
Relations X age
Intrinsic X age
Extrinsic X age
Turnover intention
X age
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Sum of
squares
2.67
675.19
677.86
24.10
870.72
894.83
21.30
1448.70
1470.00
104.85
1460.04
1564.89
2.75
642.54
645.29
10.20
398.58
408.77
4.61
579.38
583.99
17.17
382.52
399.69
11.97
793.35
805.32
59.68
775.25
834.93
Degrees of
freedom
5
1009
1014
5
1009
1014
5
1009
1014
5
1009
1014
5
1008
1013
5
1010
1015
5
1010
1015
5
1010
1015
5
1010
1015
5
1009
1014
Mean
square
0.53
0.67
Fstatistic
0.797
Significance
.55
2097
1.45
14.49
.00
4.26
1.44
2.97
.01
20.97
1.45
14.49
.00
0.55
0.64
0.86
.51
2.04
0.40
5.17
.00
0.92
0.57
1.61
.16
3.43
0.38
9.07
.00
2.39
0.79
5.17
.00
11.94
0.77
15.54
.00
Table 4.11: Analysis of Variance: Between Group Differences X Age
68
N
Psychological empowerment
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 44
45 – 54
55 – 64
65+
Influence
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 44
45 – 54
55 – 64
65+
Meaning
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 44
45 – 54
55 – 64
65+
Job Satisfaction
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 44
45 – 54
55 – 64
65+
Intrinsic satisfaction
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 44
45 – 54
55 – 64
65+
Extrinsic satisfaction
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 44
45 – 54
55 – 64
65+
Turnover Intention
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 44
45 – 54
55 – 64
65+
Standard
Deviation
Point estimate
95% confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
645
191
103
44
23
9
5.52
5.63
5.97
5.85
5.91
5.98
0.92
1.05
0.71
0.98
0.83
1.03
5.45
5.48
5.83
5.55
5.54
5.19
5.59
5.78
6.11
6.15
6.27
6.77
645
191
103
44
23
9
5.20
5.28
5.65
5.41
5.41
5.70
1.17
1.36
0.90
1.55
1.12
1.10
5.11
5.09
5.47
4.94
4.93
4.86
5.29
5.48
5.83
5.59
5.90
6.55
645
192
102
44
23
9
5.45
5.70
6.34
6.09
6.52
6.22
1.25
1.35
0.70
0.90
0.55
1.19
5.35
5.51
6.21
5.81
6.28
5.31
5.54
5.89
6.48
6.36
6.76
7.00
645
192
103
44
23
9
3.70
3.73
3.98
3.71
4.09
3.91
0.62
0.69
0.57
0.58
0.61
0.84
3.65
3.63
3.87
3.54
3.82
3.27
3.74
3.82
4.09
3.89
4.35
4.55
645
192
103
44
23
9
3.73
3.82
4.12
3.87
4.18
3.81
0.61
0.67
0.56
0.56
0.58
0.78
3.68
3.73
4.01
3.70
3.93
3.35
3.78
3.92
4.23
4.04
4.43
4.54
645
192
103
44
23
9
3.26
3.31
3.55
3.19
3.71
3.47
0.87
0.97
0.83
0.86
0.78
1.11
3.19
3.17
3.39
2.93
3.38
2.62
3.33
3.45
3.71
3.45
4.05
4.33
644
192
103
44
23
9
3.15
2.87
2.49
2.69
2.42
2.44
0.87
0.94
0.86
0.73
0.82
0.87
3.08
2.73
2.32
2.47
2.07
1.77
3.22
3.00
2.65
2.91
2.78
3.12
Table 4.12: Age Differences: Estimates of the Mean Scores
69
Relationship
Leader-Member Exchange X age
Psychological empowerment X age
Influence X age
Meaning X age
Competence X age
Job Satisfaction X age
Relations X age
Intrinsic X age
Extrinsic X age
Turnover Intention X age
Table 4.13: Effect Size of Age
70
η2
.004
.027
.014
.067
.004
.025
.008
.043
.015
.071
BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES - EMPLOYMENT TENURE
Statistically significant between group differences based upon employment tenure
were found for five (5) variables as outlined in table 4.14: competence dimension of
psychological empowerment (F = 4.73, p < .01), job satisfaction (F = 4.96, p < .01),
relational satisfaction (F = 10.91, p < .01), extrinsic satisfaction (F = 10.46, p < .01), and
turnover intention (F = 3.09, p = .02).
Employees employed for less than three months
feel less able to perform their jobs; however, mean scores for this group of associates is
higher in the relational aspects of job satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction, and overall job
satisfaction. In addition, these workers have lower turnover intentions, as outlined in
table 4.15. The effect of employment tenure is weak, accounting for only 4.1% of the
variance or less for each of the variables that is significantly impacted by the factor (see
table 4.16). Employment tenure explains 1.2% of the variance in turnover intention (η2 =
.012)
71
Relationship
Leader-Member
Exchange X
employment tenure
Psychological
empowerment
X employment
tenure
Influence X
employment tenure
Meaning X
employment tenure
Competence X
employment tenure
Job Satisfaction
X employment
tenure
Relations X
employment tenure
Intrinsic X
employment tenure
Extrinsic X
employment tenure
Turnover intention
X employment
tenure
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Sum of
squares
3.58
688.80
692.38
1.03
931.43
932.46
Degrees of
freedom
4
1008
1012
4
1009
1013
Mean
square
0.90
0.68
Fstatistic
1.31
Significance
.26
0.26
0.92
0.28
.89
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
1.04
1494.63
1495.67
6.03
1596.16
1602.19
12.88
686.35
699.23
8.18
416.48
424.66
25.01
579.01
604.01
1.99
413.38
415.37
32.46
783.99
816.45
10.12
827.09
837.21
4
1009
1013
4
1009
1013
4
1008
1012
4
1010
1014
4
1010
1014
4
1010
1014
4
1010
1014
4
1010
1014
0.26
1.48
0.18
.95
1.51
1.58
0.95
.43
3.22
0.68
4.73
.00
2.05
0.41
4.96
.00
6.25
0.57
10.91
.00
0.50
0.41
1.22
.30
8.12
0.78
10.46
.00
2.53
0.82
3.09
.02
Table 4.14: Analysis of Variance: Between Group Differences X Employment
Tenure
72
N
Competence
Less than 3 months
> 3 months < 1 year
1 – 3 years
3 – 5 years
5 – 10 years
Job Satisfaction
Less than 3 months
> 3 months < 1 year
1 – 3 years
3 – 5 years
5 – 10 years
Relations
Less than 3 months
> 3 months < 1 year
1 – 3 years
3 – 5 years
5 – 10 years
Extrinsic Satisfaction
Less than 3 months
> 3 months < 1 year
1 – 3 years
3 – 5 years
5 – 10 years
Turnover Intention
Less than 3 months
> 3 months < 1 year
1 – 3 years
3 – 5 years
5 – 10 years
Standard
Deviation
Point estimate
95% confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
118
379
357
129
30
5.95
6.24
6.30
6.33
6.39
0.81
0.89
0.76
0.77
1.01
5.80
6.15
6.23
6.19
6.01
6.10
6.33
6.38
6.46
6.77
118
380
358
129
30
3.96
3.75
3.68
3.66
3.63
0.57
0.67
0.65
0.60
0.57
3.86
3.68
3.62
3.55
3.42
4.07
3.82
3.75
3.76
3.84
118
380
358
129
30
4.17
3.92
3.75
3.65
3.57
0.65
0.77
0.78
0.70
0.84
4.05
3.84
3.67
3.52
3.26
4.29
4.00
3.83
3.77
3.89
118
380
358
129
30
3.73
3.34
3.21
3.11
2.99
0.75
0.92
0.90
0.85
0.71
3.59
3.25
3.12
2.97
2.72
3.87
3.43
3.31
3.26
3.26
118
380
358
129
30
2.74
3.01
3.07
2.97
2.90
0.85
0.95
0.87
0.87
1.08
2.58
2.92
2.98
2.82
2.50
2.89
3.11
3.16
3.12
3.30
Table 4.15: Employment Tenure Differences: Estimates of the Mean Scores
73
Relationship
Leader-Member Exchange X
employment tenure
Psychological empowerment X
employment tenure
Influence X employment tenure
Meaning X employment tenure
Competence X employment tenure
Job Satisfaction X employment tenure
Relations X employment tenure
Intrinsic X employment tenure
Extrinsic X employment tenure
Turnover Intention X employment
tenure
η2
.005
.001
.001
.004
.018
.019
.041
.005
.040
.012
Table 4.16: Effect Size of Employment Tenure
74
BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES – INDUSTRY TENURE
Statistically significant between group differences were found for nine of the ten
(9 of 10) variables based upon industry tenure as outlined in table 4.17. The only
variable without a statistically significant difference between at least two groups was
Leader-Member Exchange (F = 0.23, p = .95).
As outlined in table 4.18, employees with ten or more (10+) years of industry
experience felt a higher level of psychological empowerment and influence than
employees with less than five (5) years of experience; they also perceive a higher sense
of purpose or meaning in their work than employees with less than ten years of
experience. It is no surprise that employees with less than three (3) months of experience
in the industry feel less capable than employees with more than one (1) year of
experience. Employees with ten or more (10+) years of restaurant or retail experience,
not necessarily with one employer, indicated that they are more satisfied in their job than
employees with between one and ten (1 – 10) years of industry experience. Associates
with three to twelve (3 – 12) months of experience enjoy higher relational satisfaction
levels than employees with three to ten (3 – 10) years of industry experience. Employees
with less than three (3) months of industry experience felt a higher level of extrinsic
satisfaction than workers with one to ten (1 – 10) years of experience. Workers with
more than ten (10) years of industry experience expressed higher intrinsic satisfaction and
lower turnover intentions. The effect of industry tenure is outlined in table 4.19; industry
tenure explains 6.5% of the variance in turnover intention (η2 = .065).
75
Relationship
Leader-Member
Exchange X
industry tenure
Psychological
empowerment
X industry tenure
Influence X industry
tenure
Meaning X industry
tenure
Competence X
industry tenure
Job Satisfaction
X industry tenure
Relations X industry
tenure
Intrinsic X industry
tenure
Extrinsic X industry
tenure
Turnover intention
X industry tenure
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Sum of
squares
.78
692.72
693.50
29.53
907.60
937.13
26.74
1477.48
1504.22
76.99
1529.92
1606.91
22.35
678.19
700.54
7.86
417.16
425.03
10.51
593.67
604.18
13.43
402.42
415.85
14.73
803.44
818.17
54.46
787.55
842.00
Degrees of
freedom
5
1012
1017
5
1013
1018
5
1013
1018
5
1013
1018
5
1012
1017
5
1014
1019
5
1014
1019
5
1014
1019
5
1014
1019
5
1014
1019
Mean
square
0.16
0.69
Fstatistic
0.23
Significance
.95
5.91
0.90
6.59
.00
5.35
1.46
3.67
.00
15.40
1.51
10.20
.00
4.47
0.67
6.67
.00
1.57
0.41
3.82
.00
2.10
0.59
3.59
.00
2.69
0.40
6.77
.00
2.95
0.79
3.72
.00
1089
078
14.02
.00
Table 4.17: Analysis of Variance: Between Group Differences X Industry Tenure
76
N
Psychological Empowerment
Less than 3 months
42
> 3 months < 1 year
120
1 – 3 years
311
3 – 5 years
223
5 – 10 years
189
10+ years
134
Influence
Less than 3 months
42
> 3 months < 1 year
120
1 – 3 years
311
3 – 5 years
223
5 – 10 years
189
10+ years
134
Meaning
Less than 3 months
42
> 3 months < 1 year
120
1 – 3 years
311
3 – 5 years
223
5 – 10 years
189
10+ years
134
Competence
Less than 3 months
42
> 3 months < 1 year
120
1 – 3 years
311
3 – 5 years
223
5 – 10 years
189
10+ years
134
Job Satisfaction
Less than 3 months
42
> 3 months < 1 year
120
1 – 3 years
311
3 – 5 years
223
5 – 10 years
189
10+ years
135
Relational Satisfaction
Less than 3 months
42
> 3 months < 1 year
120
1 – 3 years
311
3 – 5 years
223
5 – 10 years
189
10+ years
135
Standard
Deviation
Point estimate
95% confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
5.37
5.46
5.54
5.49
5.72
5.97
0.99
1.06
0.98
0.94
0.89
0.83
5.06
5.26
5.43
5.37
5.60
5.83
5.68
5.65
5.65
5.62
5.85
6.11
5.06
5.16
5.20
5.15
5.39
5.62
1.09
1.26
1.25
1.20
1.18
1.14
4.72
4.93
5.06
4.99
5.22
5.42
5.40
5.39
5.34
5.31
5.56
5.81
5.66
5.40
5.53
5.45
5.70
6.30
1.07
1.45
1.22
1.29
1.27
0.84
5.33
5.14
5.39
5.28
5.51
6.16
5.99
5.67
5.67
5.62
5.88
6.44
5.70
6.10
6.23
6.23
6.42
6.35
0.95
0.90
0.82
0.81
0.76
0.78
5.40
5.94
6.14
6.13
6.31
6.21
5.99
6.27
6.32
6.34
6.53
6.48
3.87
3.80
3.71
3.65
3.69
3.92
0.49
0.68
0.66
0.62
0.63
0.66
3.71
3.67
3.64
3.57
3.59
3.80
4.02
3.92
3.78
3.73
3.78
4.03
3.98
4.04
3.87
3.77
3.71
3.88
0.55
0.73
0.78
0.74
0.81
0.79
3.81
3.91
3.79
3.67
3.60
3.74
4.15
4.18
3.96
3.86
3.83
4.01
Continued
Table 4.18: Industry Tenure Differences: Estimates of the Mean Scores
77
Table 4.18 continued
N
Intrinsic Satisfaction
Less than 3 months
> 3 months < 1 year
1 – 3 years
3 – 5 years
5 – 10 years
10+ years
Extrinsic Satisfaction
Less than 3 months
> 3 months < 1 year
1 – 3 years
3 – 5 years
5 – 10 years
10+ years
Turnover Intention
Less than 3 months
> 3 months < 1 year
1 – 3 years
3 – 5 years
5 – 10 years
10+ years
Standard
Deviation
Point estimate
95% confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
42
120
311
223
189
135
3.56
3.78
3.74
3.72
3.80
4.08
0.54
0.70
0.63
0.62
0.62
0.61
3.72
3.65
3.67
3.64
3.71
3.97
4.06
3.90
3.81
3.80
3.89
4.18
42
120
311
223
189
135
3.67
3.44
3.29
3.20
3.20
3.44
0.55
0.95
0.91
0.86
0.84
0.97
3.50
3.26
3.19
3.08
3.08
3.27
3.84
3.61
3.39
3.31
3.32
3.60
42
120
311
223
189
135
2.79
3.06
3.11
3.16
2.97
2.44
0.72
0.93
0.89
0.84
0.90
0.90
2.57
2.89
3.01
3.05
2.85
2.28
3.02
3.23
3.21
3.27
3.10
2.59
78
Relationship
Leader-Member Exchange X industry
tenure
Psychological empowerment X
industry tenure
Influence X industry tenure
Meaning X industry tenure
Competence X industry tenure
Job Satisfaction X industry tenure
Relations X industry tenure
Intrinsic X industry tenure
Extrinsic X industry tenure
Turnover Intention X industry tenure
η2
.001
.032
.018
.048
.032
.018
.017
.032
.018
.065
Table 4.19: Effect Size of Industry Tenure
79
BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES – EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Employment status, whether an employee is working full- or part-time for the
company, generated statistically significant between group differences for seven of the
ten (7 of 10) variables of interest as outlined in table 4.20: psychological empowerment
(F = 8.79, p < .01), influence (F = 5.07, p < .01), meaning (F = 9.31, p < .01), competence
(F = 6.54, p < .01), relational satisfaction (F = 7.22, p < .01), intrinsic satisfaction (F =
5.52, p < .01), and turnover intention (F = 13.12, p < .01). Part-time associates’ mean
scores were lower for five of the seven (5 of 7) variables significantly affected by
employment status including psychological empowerment, each of its three dimensions,
and intrinsic satisfaction (see table 4.21). Part-time associates, however, rated relational
satisfaction higher, on average, and had higher turnover intentions. The effect of
employment status on the variables was small accounting for 2.5% of the variance in the
sum of squares or less in each case (see table 4.22).
80
Relationship
Leader-Member
Exchange X
employment status
Psychological
empowerment X
employment status
Influence X
employment status
Meaning X industry
employment status
Competence X
employment status
Job Satisfaction
X employment
status
Relations X
employment status
Intrinsic X
employment status
Extrinsic X
employment status
Turnover intention
X employment
status
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Sum of
squares
.079
695.04
695.83
15.94
919.94
935.88
14.88
1490.27
1505.14
28.96
1578.38
1607.34
8.92
691.68
700.60
1.02
425.19
426.22
8.53
599.69
608.22
4.47
411.56
416.04
4.00
814.63
818.62
21.29
823.21
844.50
Degrees of
freedom
2
1015
1017
2
1015
1017
2
1015
1017
2
1015
1017
2
1014
1016
2
1016
1018
2
1016
1018
2
1016
1018
2
1016
1018
2
1015
1017
Mean
square
0.40
0.69
Fstatistic
0.58
Significance
.56
7.97
0.91
8.79
.00
7.44
1.47
5.07
.01
14.48
1.56
9.31
.00
4.46
0.68
6.54
.00
0.51
0.42
1.22
.30
4.26
0.59
7.22
.00
2.24
0.41
5.52
.00
2.00
0.80
2.49
.08
1064
0.81
13.12
.00
Table 4.20: Analysis of Variance: Between Group Differences X Employment
Status
81
N
Psychological empowerment
Full-time
456
Part-time
559
Influence
Full-time
456
Part-time
559
Meaning
Full-time
456
Part-time
559
Competence
Full-time
455
Part-time
559
Relational satisfaction
Full-time
456
Part-time
560
Intrinsic satisfaction
Full-time
456
Part-time
560
Turnover Intention
Full-time
456
Part-time
559
Standard
Deviation
Point estimate
95% confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
5.74
5.49
0.93
0.97
5.66
5.41
5.83
5.57
5.40
5.16
1.19
1.23
5.29
5.06
5.51
5.26
5.82
5.16
1.25
1.23
5.71
5.06
5.94
5.26
6.35
6.16
0.78
0.86
6.28
6.09
6.42
6.23
3.75
3.92
0.82
.073
3.67
3.86
3.82
3.98
3.86
3.74
0.65
0.63
3.81
3.69
3.92
3.79
2.84
3.12
0.92
0.88
2.75
3.05
2.92
3.20
Table 4.21: Employment Status Differences: Estimates of the Mean Score*
* Estimates for “seasonal employees” are not included since only 3 of 1,019 respondents identified
themselves as seasonal employees.
82
Relationship
Leader-Member Exchange X employment status
Psychological empowerment X employment status
Influence X employment status
Meaning X employment status
Competence X employment status
Job Satisfaction X employment status
Relations X employment status
Intrinsic X employment status
Extrinsic X employment status
Turnover Intention X employment status
Table 4.22: Effect Size of Employment Status
83
η2
.001
.017
.010
.018
.013
.002
.014
.011
.005
.025
BETWEEN GROUP DIFFERENCES – JOB FUNCTION
A comparison of scores between management/administrative personnel and
hourly associates, revealed significant differences in five areas: psychological
empowerment (F = 11.47. p < .01), influence (F = 7.61, p < .01), meaning (F = 18.69, p <
.00), intrinsic satisfaction (F = 10.94, p < .01), and turnover intent (F = 30.27, p < .01) as
outlined in table 4.23. Management personnel felt a higher level of psychological
empowerment, influence, and intrinsic satisfaction as well as a lower turnover intention
(see table 4.24). The effect of job function was greatest on turnover intention; 2.9% of
the variance in turnover intention was explained by job function (table 4.25).
84
Relationship
Leader-Member
Exchange X job
function
Psychological
empowerment
X job function
Influence X job
function
.Meaning X job
function
Competence X job
function
Job Satisfaction
X job function
Relations X job
function
Intrinsic X job
function
Extrinsic X job
function
Turnover intention
X job function
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Sum of
squares
0.30
693.50
693.79
10.42
922.31
932.72
11.05
1476.03
1487.08
29.03
1578.75
1607.78
0.76
697.07
697.83
0.44
427.58
428.02
1.55
607.51
609.06
4.45
413.47
417.92
0.56
819.49
820.05
24.45
820.74
845.19
Degrees of
freedom
1
1016
1017
1
1016
1017
1
1016
1017
1
1016
1017
1
1015
1016
1
1017
1018
1
1017
1018
1
1017
1018
1
1017
1018
1
1016
1017
Mean
square
0.30
0.68
Fstatistic
0.43
Significance
.51
10.42
0.91
11.47
.00
11.05
1.45
7.61
.01
29.03
1.55
18.69
.00
0.76
0.69
1.11
.29
0.44
0.42
1.04
.31
1.55
0.60
2.60
.11
4.45
0.41
10.95
.00
0.56
0.81
0.69
.41
24.45
0.81
30.27
.00
Table 4.23: Analysis of Variance: Between Group Differences X Job Function
85
N
Point estimate
Psychological empowerment
Hourly
921
5.58
Management
97
5.92
Influence
Hourly
921
5.24
Management
97
5.60
Meaning
Hourly
921
5.58
Management
97
6.16
Intrinsic satisfaction
Hourly
922
3.78
Management
97
4.00
Turnover intention
Hourly
921
3.04
Management
97
2.51
Standard
Deviation
95% confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
0.97
0.80
5.51
5.76
5.64
6.08
1.22
1.10
5.17
5.38
5.32
5.82
1.27
0.97
5.50
5.96
5.67
6.35
0.63
0.66
3.74
3.87
3.82
4.14
0.89
1.00
2.98
2.31
3.10
2.71
Table 4.24: Job Function Difference: Estimates of the Mean Scores
Relationship
Leader-Member Exchange X job function
Psychological empowerment X job function
Influence X job function
Meaning X job function
Competence X job function
Job Satisfaction X job function
Relations X job function
Intrinsic X job function
Extrinsic X job function
Turnover Intentions X job function
Table 4.25: Effect Size of Job Function
86
η2
.000
.011
.004
.018
.001
.001
.003
.011
.001
.029
BI-VARIATE CORRELATIONS
In order to examine the relationships between the variables, bi-variate correlations
were calculated; these correlations can be found in table 4.26 for the constructs and their
respective dimensions. To calculate the bi-variate correlations, mean scores were
calculated for each construct, as well as the dimensions of each construct, from the
surveys received; the constructs, in this analysis, are composite variables represented by
the mean scores of all survey items intended to measure each respective construct.
Structural equation modeling was also performed utilizing LISREL 8.8 to test the
proposed relationships. A covariance matrix for the manifest variables, or each item on
the survey, was first calculated, utilizing SPSS version 13. This covariance matrix was
loaded into LISREL 8.8 to complete the analysis. Correlations between the latent
variables were also estimated from the structural equation model and are displayed in
table 4.33 (page 105).
87
88
Table 4.26: Bi-Variate Correlations
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING
Structural equation modeling was completed utilizing LISREL 8.8. The principle
component analysis was utilized to define the relationships between the manifest and
latent variables. Each latent variable represents an affective cognition that, while not
directly measurable, is assumed to influence the respondents’ scores on the individual
survey items. The latent variables in the model are as follows: Leader-Member Exchange
(LMX), influence (Influenc), meaning (Meaning), competence (Competnc),
psychological empowerment (PsycEmpr), relational satisfaction (Relation), intrinsic
satisfaction (Intrinsc), extrinsic satisfaction (Extrinsc), job satisfaction (JobSat), and
turnover intention (TrnIntnt). The latent variables are illustrated as ovals in all diagrams
and figures that follow.
Each observable or manifest variable was also placed in the model. These include
the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire items one (1) through twenty (20) (MSQ1 –
MSQ20), the twelve (12) Spreitzer psychological contract measures (PE1 – PE12), the
Graen and Uhl-Bien LMX-7 items (LMX1 – LMX7), and the four (4) turnover intention
items derived from Mitchel, three of which required reverse scoring (TO1REV, TO2,
TO3REV, and TO4REV). The directly observable manifest variables are illustrated as
rectangles in all diagrams that follow.
Unidirectional paths were established between the appropriate latent variables and
the manifest variables with one path being fixed at one (1.00) within each cluster of
variables so that latent variables are scaled in the metric of the observed reference
89
variables. Unidirectional paths were also established between the constructs (latent
variables) as hypothesized. Since thirty-one (31) of the forty-three (43) manifest
variables are measured on a five-point Likert-type scale, the distributions of scores
cannot be assumed to be normal. Consequently, the unweighted least squares method is
utilized to estimate the parameters as opposed to maximum likelihood, which is more
commonly used. This analysis produced the structural equation model illustrated in
figure 4.1. The standardized solution is illustrated since this facilitates the comparison of
path coefficients.
90
Figure 4.1: Structural Equation Model of the Relationships between Variables:
Full Data Set – Standardized Solution
91
In this model, ninety-seven parameters (97) are estimated and the t-values for
each path coefficient estimated indicate that all relationships are statistically significant
(p < .01), with the exception of the path from Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) to
turnover intention (γ = 0.05, t = 0.95). The fit of the model is assessed utilizing the Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA); the RMSEA is 0.073, which indicates
fair fit. An RMSEA of five-hundredths (0.05) or less is typically considered close fit
(Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Due to the complexity of this model, however, the fit is
acceptable. In order to improve the stability of the model and to reduce the number of
parameters to be estimated, a slightly modified model was developed in which a number
of manifest variables are removed from the full model. A more parsimonious model may
be helpful when interpreting the model and when analyzing sub-sets of the data.
Manifest variables associated with relational satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction,
influence, leader-member exchange, and turnover intention were removed from the
model. Since the squared-multiple correlations (R2) for the manifest variables indicate
the strength of the linear relationships between the manifest variables and the
corresponding latent variable, this value assesses the reliability of the observed variables.
The reliability of each measure as well as the factor loadings from the principle
component analysis were carefully considered and substantially influenced which
variables were removed from the analysis; however, care was also taken to ensure that
the remaining measures provide a well-balanced representation of the constructs. Four
(4) manifest variables were retained for each of the job satisfaction dimensions and three
(3) manifest variables for the psychological contract dimensions. Since a multi92
dimensional structure was not identified for Leader-Member Exchange, the three LMX
manifest variables with the lowest reliability were removed and turnover intention item
two (2) was also removed due to its low reliability. Table 4.27 indicates which of these
manifest variables were removed from the analysis while table 4.28 outlines the items
that were retained to represent each construct.
93
Item
Measure
Relational satisfaction
MSQ7
Moral values
MSQ19
Recognition
Intrinsic satisfaction
MSQ1
Activity
MSQ3
Variety
MSQ4
Social status
MSQ8
Security
MSQ15
Responsibility
MSQ16
Creativity
Influence
PE3
Opinion counts
PE4
Personal initiative
PE7
Autonomy
Leader-member exchange (LMX)
LMX5
“Bail you out”
LMX6
Confidence in leader
LMX7
Categorize relationship
Turnover intention
TO2
“So irritated” think about changing jobs
*p < .01
Path
Coefficient
R2
0.66*
1.04*
0.36
0.50
0.52*
0.81*
0.96*
0.72*
0.95*
0.92*
0.28
0.33
0.50
0.33
0.44
0.48
0.96*
0.86*
0.92*
0.53
0.56
0.54
0.87*
0.82*
0.77*
0.44
0.52
0.52
0.61*
0.18
Table 4.27: Manifest Variables Removed from
Structural Equation Model
94
Item
Measure
Influence
PE9
Control over my job
PE11
Freedom in determining how
PE12
Influence in my work group
Meaning
PE1
Work is important to me
PE5
Job activities meaningful to me
PE8
Care about what I do
Competence
PE2
Confidence in my ability
PE6
Within scope of my abilities
PE10
Mastered the skills
Relational satisfaction
MSQ5
Supervision – human relations
MSQ6
Supervision – technical
MSQ17
Working conditions
MSQ18
Co-workers
Intrinsic satisfaction
MSQ2
Independence
MSQ9
Social service
MSQ10
Authority
MSQ11
Ability utilization
Extrinsic satisfaction
MSQ12
Company policies & practices
MSQ13
Compensation
MSQ14
Advancement
MSQ20
Achievement
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
LMX1
Know where you stand
LMX2
Leader understands needs
LMX3
Recognizes your potential
LMX4
Helps you solve problems
Turnover intention
TO1REV
Plan to stay ‘quite a while’
TO3REV
Plan to be with firm in five years
TO4REV
Turn down another offer
*p < .01 **value fixed at 1.00
Path Coefficient
R2
1.03*
1.00**
1.06*
0.62
0.58
0.60
1.00**
1.14*
0.93*
0.69
0.74
0.66
1.12*
0.98*
1.00**
0.69
0.22
0.37
1.07*
1.00**
0.85*
0.68*
0.57
0.61
0.48
0.29
0.59*
0.71*
0.61*
1.00**
0.24
0.44
0.26
0.49
1.05*
1.00**
1.01*
1.12*
0.46
0.36
0.47
0.64
0.95*
1.00**
1.00*
0.88*
0.53
0.65
0.60
0.58
1.00**
1.07*
0.87*
0.74
0.58
0.45
Table 4.28: Manifest Variables Retained in the
Modified Structural Equation Model
95
Following these revisions to the model, estimates of the parameters were
calculated once again. The results from this analysis are illustrated in figure 4.2. The
standardized solution is illustrated since, in this format, it is possible to compare and
contrast the path coefficients; furthermore, the squared-multiple correlations (R2) for the
manifest variables are equal to the complement of the residuals, or one (1) minus the
residual, for each observable variable when the standardized values are presented.
96
Figure 4.2: Modified Structural Equation Model, with Revisions, of the
Relationships between Variables: Full Data Set – Standardized Solution
97
Sixty-seven (67) parameters are estimated in the revised model. An acceptable fit
was maintained (RMSEA = 0.075); the root mean square error of approximation
increases slightly (0.075 versus 0.073) since the calculation for RMSEA includes the
degrees of freedom in the denominator of the equation, which have been reduced
substantially in the new model (339 versus 849). The path coefficients (λx, λy, or β
coefficients) remain statistically significant (non-zero) between the latent variables (ξ or
η variables) and corresponding manifest variables (x or y variables) as well as between
the latent variables, job satisfaction (η) and psychological empowerment (ξ), and their
respective dimensions (η variables): relational satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction,
extrinsic satisfaction, influence, meaning, and competence. In addition, the path
coefficients between LMX (ξ) and job satisfaction (γ = 0.36, t = 11.30), psychological
empowerment and job satisfaction (γ = 0.41, t = 13.32), and psychological empowerment
and turnover intention (γ = -0.51, t = -5.96) each remain statistically significant. The path
coefficient (β) between job satisfaction and turnover intention (η), however, is no longer
significant (β = -0.31, t = -1.89). As in the full model, the coefficient representing the
influence of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) on turnover intention (γ = 0.06, t = 0.85)
is also not statistically significant in the revised model. Table 4.29 summarizes this
information and provides estimates of the path coefficients, standard errors of the
estimates, t-values, standardized values, residuals, and squared multiple correlations (R2)
as determined by the relationships between the latent and manifest variables.
98
Path
Standard
Manifest variable
coefficient
error
Paths from Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) to:
LMX1
0.95*
0.04
LMX2
1.00**
LMX3
1.01*
0.04
LMX4
0.79*
0.03
Paths from Relational satisfaction to:
MSQ5
1.08*
0.04
MSQ6
1.00**
MSQ17
0.77*
0.04
MSQ18
0.63*
0.04
Paths from Intrinsic satisfaction to:
MSQ2
0.55*
0.04
MSQ9
0.66*
0.03
MSQ10
0.59*
0.04
MSQ11
1.00**
Paths from Extrinsic satisfaction to:
MSQ12
1.04*
0.06
MSQ13
1.00**
MSQ14
1.00*
0.06
MSQ20
1.11*
0.06
Paths from Influence to:
PE9
1.01*
0.03
PE11
1.00**
PE12
1.00*
0.04
Paths from Meaning to:
PE1
1.00**
PE5
1.14*
0.04
PE8
0.93*
0.03
Paths from Competence to:
PE2
1.12*
0.09
PE6
0.97*
0.08
PE10
1.00**
Paths from Turnover intensions to:
TO1REV
1.00**
TO3REV
1.07*
0.04
TO4REV
0.84*
0.04
* p < .01 **value fixed at 1.00
t-value
Standardized
coefficient
Residual
R2
25.89
28.22
24.01
0.75
0.83
0.81
0.71
0.55
0.36
0.44
0.49
0.57
0.69
0.65
0.50
26.33
21.05
16.27
0.81
0.82
0.66
0.52
0.45
0.34
0.55
0.74
0.65
0.68
0.43
0.27
14.44
19.66
15.82
-
0.49
0.67
0.54
0.76
0.63
0.36
0.57
0.49
0.24
0.45
0.29
0.58
17.51
17.59
19.62
0.68
0.61
0.69
0.81
0.71
0.95
0.64
0.38
0.47
0.37
0.47
0.65
29.38
27.38
0.82
0.79
0.78
0.75
0.88
0.98
0.67
0.63
0.60
30.20
28.24
0.81
0.86
0.81
0.66
0.57
0.57
0.66
0.75
0.66
13.13
11.61
-
0.83
0.46
0.61
0.23
1.42
0.69
0.70
0.21
0.37
25.39
21.67
0.87
0.77
0.67
0.26
0.64
0.74
0.76
0.59
0.44
Table 4.29: Summary of Relationships Between the Latent and Manifest Variables
99
Table 4.30 summarizes the findings relative to the relationships between the latent
variables.
Path
Standard
Latent variable
coefficient
error
Direct effect of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) on:
Job satisfaction
0.36*
0.03
Turnover intention
0.06
0.07
Direct effect of psychological empowerment on:
Influence
1.00**
Meaning
0.98*
0.04
Competence
0.32*
0.03
Job satisfaction
0.41*
0.03
Turnover intention
-0.51*
0.09
Direct effect of job satisfaction on:
Relational satisfaction
0.92*
0.06
Intrinsic satisfaction
1.02*
0.06
Extrinsic satisfaction
1.00**
Turnover intention
-0.31
0.16
t-value
Standardized
value
11.30
0.85
0.45
0.06
25.04
10.54
13.32
-5.96
0.82
0.87
0.50
0.58
-0.56
16.63
16.98
-1.89
0.78
0.89
0.95
-0.25
* p < .01 **value fixed at 1.00
Table 4.30: Summary of Direct Relationships Among Latent
Variables
Table 4.31 outlines the squared multiple correlations for the latent variables,
which provides an indication regarding the strength of the linear relationships between
the effect variables and the dependent variables, as well as the estimated residuals for
each of the dependent variables.
100
Dependent variable
Relational satisfaction
Intrinsic satisfaction
Extrinsic satisfaction
Influence
Meaning
Competence
Job satisfaction
Turnover intention
Cause or effect variable(s)
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction
Psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment
LMX, psychological empowerment
LMX, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction
Residuals
0.28
0.14
0.05
0.49
0.32
0.31
0.08
0.37
R2
0.61
0.80
0.90
0.67
0.75
0.25
0.85
0.56
Table 4.31: Summary of the Relationships between Latent Variables
In addition to the direct effects outlined in table 4.29, Leader-Member Exchange
(LMX) and psychological empowerment have indirect effects on relational satisfaction,
intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction, and turnover intention as mediated by job
satisfaction. These indirect effects are summarized in table 4.32.
101
Path
Standard
Latent variable
coefficient
error
t-value
Indirect effect of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) on:
Relational satisfaction
0.33*
0.03
11.77
Intrinsic satisfaction
0.37*
0.03
11.90
Extrinsic satisfaction
0.36*
0.03
11.30
Turnover intention
-0.05
0.04
-1.21
Indirect effect of psychological empowerment on:
Relational satisfaction
0.38*
0.03
14.11
Intrinsic satisfaction
0.37*
0.03
11.90
Extrinsic satisfaction
0.36*
0.03
11.30
Turnover intention
-0.64*
0.04
-14.99
* p < .01
Dependent variable
Cause or effect variables
Relational satisfaction
LMX and psychological empowerment
(mediated by job satisfaction)
Intrinsic satisfaction
Extrinsic satisfaction
Turnover intention
Standardized
value
0.35
0.40
0.43
-0.05
0.45
0.51
0.55
-0.71
R2
0.52
0.68
0.77
0.55
Table 4.32: Indirect Effects Mediated by Job Satisfaction
The relationships of interest in the present study are the latent variables. The
manifest variables serve as reference variables and, since they can be measured, their role
in the analysis is to allow the relationships between the latent variables to be quantified in
a meaningful way. Consequently, figure 4.3 illustrates the relationships between the
latent variables with the manifest variables removed from the illustration. Note: The
correlation between LMX and psychological empowerment is estimated by the model to
be sixty-one-hundredths (0.61), which is not shown in the illustration (see table 4.33).
102
Figure 4.3: Structural Equation Model Illustrating the Relationships between the
Latent Variables
103
A correlation matrix may be constructed from the model that includes the
exogenous latent variables (ξ), LMX and psychological empowerment, as well as the
dependent latent variables (η). This correlation matrix is found in table 4.33.
104
105
Table 4.33: Correlation of Latent Variables (η and ξ) derived from the Structural Equation Model
NON-LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS
The latent variable structural equation model, tests for linear relationships
between the variables. To test for a curvilinear relationship between Leader-Member
Exchange (LMX) and turnover intention, as proposed in hypothesis four (H4), regression
analysis was completed, utilizing SPSS version 13, testing linear, quadratic (U-shaped),
and cubic (S-shaped) models. In order to complete the regression analysis, composite
variables were utilized, which are calculated as the mean scores for the seven LMX-7
survey items and the four turnover intention survey items for each respondent. The
ANOVA tables for each of these analyses indicate that the F-statistic generated by each
model, with 1,021 degrees of freedom, is statistically significant (α = 0.01). The
summary in table 4.34 identifies which terms of the regression equations are statistically
significant as well as the amount of variance in turnover intention that is explained by the
significant LMX terms of the equations.
106
Term of the regression equation
Coefficient (β)
Standard error
t-value
Linear regression:
Constant (α)
4.75
0.12
41.11
LMX
-0.48*
0.03
-15.61
Non-linear regression (quadratic form):
Constant (α)
3.83
0.35
11.01
LMX
0.09
0.20
0.08
-0.08*
0.03
-2.83
LMX2
Non-linear regression (cubic form):
Constant (α)
4.38
0.87
5.01
LMX
-0.48
0.86
-0.56
0.10
0.63
0.37
LMX2
-0.02
0.03
-0.68
LMX3
Percentage of variance in turnover intention explained by LMX:
Linear model
Quadratic model (U-shape)
*p < .01
p-value
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.670
0.005
0.000
0.577
0.713
0.498
R2
0.193
0.199
Table 4.34: Summary of Non-Linear Regression Analysis –
Leader Member Exchange (LMX) as a Predictor of Turnover Intention
107
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
The hypothesized relationships are evaluated based upon the bi-variate
correlations, as outlined in table 4.26, coupled with the structural equation model. Since
a curvilinear relationship is hypothesized to exist between LMX and turnover intention,
and the structural equation model tests for linear relationships, the non-linear regression
analysis is utilized to evaluate hypothesis four (H4). The specific findings relative to each
of the six proposed hypotheses are outlined below:
H1: The quality of the LMX relationship, as perceived by a subordinate and
measured by the three dimensions of respect, trust, and obligation, will be directly
related to the level psychological empowerment.
A direct and statistically significant relationship (r = 0.55) was found to exist
between Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and psychological empowerment based upon
the bi-variate correlation analysis (table 4.26). The structural equation model supports
this position estimating a correlation of 0.61 (table 4.33) to exist between the affective
cognitions of LMX and psychological empowerment.
H2: The quality of the LMX relationship, as perceived by a subordinate and
measured by the three dimensions of respect, trust, and obligation, will be directly
related to the level of job satisfaction.
A statistically significant positive path coefficient between Leader-Member
Exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction (γ = 0.36, t = 11.30) provides support for this
hypothesis (table 4.30). A significant relationship was found to exist between LMX and
108
the level of job satisfaction based upon the structural equation model’s correlation
estimation (r = 0.80, table 4.33) as well as in the bi-variate correlation analysis (r = 0.71,
table 4.26).
H3: Psychological empowerment, measured in terms of the four dimensions of
meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact, will be positively related to
job satisfaction.
Hypothesis three (H3) is supported. A statistically significant path coefficient (γ =
0.41, t = 13.32) between these latent variables, psychological empowerment and job
satisfaction, provides support for this hypothesis (table 4.30). The correlation analyses
also indicate support for this hypothesis (r = 0.73, table 4.26 and r = 0.85, table 4.33).
H4: The relationship between the quality of the LMX relationship, as perceived
by a subordinate and measured by the three dimensions of respect, trust, and
obligation, and turnover intention will be curvilinear (U-shaped) with a moderate
quality level producing the lowest level of turnover intention and low or high
quality exchanges generating relatively higher levels of turnover intention.
A linear relationship between LMX and turnover intention is not supported by the
structural equation model; the path coefficient in the model is not statistically significant
(γ = 0.06, t = 0.85, table 4.30). The latent variable structural equation model, however,
tests for linear relationships between the variables.
To test for a curvilinear relationship, regression analysis was also completed,
utilizing SPSS version 13, testing linear, quadratic (U-shaped), and cubic (S-shaped)
models (table 4.34). Utilizing composite variables, a statistically significant, yet small
109
negative linear relationship is found to exist between LMX and turnover intention (r = 0.44), which explained 19.3% of the variance in turnover intention (R2 = 0.193). The
squared LMX term (β = -0.083) in the quadratic regression equation is statistically
significant (t = -2.83, p < .01) as well, which suggests that an inverted U-shaped
relationship may exist between LMX and turnover intention. The quadratic model is not
substantially more explanatory (R2 = 0.199 versus R2 = 0.193 for the linear model). The
cubed LMX term in the cubic model is not statistically significant (t = -0.68, p = .50),
which does not support the suggestion of an S-shaped relationship. Based upon these
analyses, the relationship between LMX and turnover intention remains equivocal; the
present research fails to show strong support for hypothesis four (H4).
H5: Psychological empowerment, measured utilizing the four dimensions of
meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact, will be negatively related
to turnover intention.
As found by Hancer and George (2001), the four dimensional factor structure of
psychological empowerment compressed to a three factor structure, with a sample of
restaurant workers, in which the dimensions of self-determination and impact combined
to form the dimension of influence. In support of hypothesis five (H5), the statistically
significant path coefficient (γ = -0.51, t = -5.96, table 4.30) suggests that a direct negative
relationship exists between psychological empowerment and turnover intention. In
addition, psychological empowerment has a statistically significant indirect effect on
turnover intention, which is mediated by job satisfaction (γ = -0.64, t = -14.99, table
4.32).
110
H6: Turnover intention will be negatively related to job satisfaction.
Some support is found to suggest that the relationship between job satisfaction
and turnover intention is negative as anticipated. Job satisfaction has the strongest
relationship with turnover intention in the bi-variate correlation table utilizing composite
variables (r = -0.60); this correlation is statistically significant (p < 0.01, table 4.26). In
the structural equation model, however, the path coefficient between job satisfaction and
turnover intention is not statistically significant (β = -0.31, t = -1.89, table 4.31).
Consequently, with the total sample, a negative linear relationship between job
satisfaction and turnover intention is not found.
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
A number of between group differences have been identified based upon the
demographic information collected from the respondents. In order to better understand
the relationships between the variables of interest, the structural equation model was
tested utilizing several sub-sets of the data. Covariance matrices that define the
relationships between the manifest variables were generated for full-time associates, parttime associates, associates under thirty-five (35) years-of-age, associates thirty-five (35)
years-of-age and over, as well as for management and administrative personnel and
employees with more than ten (10) years of industry tenure. These matrices were utilized
to test the fit of the model for these different demographic groups in an effort to better
understand the relationships between the latent variables among these different sub-sets
111
of employees. The findings from these analyses are found in figures 4.10 through 4.14
and are summarized in tables 4.41a and 4.41b. Tables 4.35 through 4.40 present the
correlation tables for the latent variables as estimated by the model for each sub-set
analyzed.
FULL-TIME VERSUS PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
Figure 4.4 illustrates the structural equation model for full-time employees while
figure 4.5 represents the model for part-time employees. Sixty-and-nine-tenths percent
(60.9%) of the participating firm’s associates are employed on a part-time basis by the
firm, while thirty-eight-and-eight-tenths percent (38.8%) are full-time associates. The
model does not fit the data as well when part-time employees are removed from the
analysis; the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation is eighty-three thousandths
(RMSEA = 0.083) for full-time employees versus seventy-three thousandths (RMSEA =
0.073) for part-time employees. In addition, the following relationships between latent
variables (η and ξ variables) are statistically significant in the model with the full-time
associates: LMX and job satisfaction (γ = 0.34, t = 7.69), psychological empowerment
and job satisfaction (γ = 0.34, t = 7.76), psychological empowerment and turnover
intention (γ = -0.33, t = -3.08), and job satisfaction and turnover intention (β = -0.86, t = 3.51). This is the only group of associates, full-time employees, in which a statistically
significant relationship is identified between job satisfaction and turnover intention. The
following relationships are statistically significant with part-time associates: LMX and
112
job satisfaction (γ = 0.34, t = 7.36), psychological empowerment and job satisfaction (γ =
0.50, t = 11.21), psychological empowerment and turnover intention (γ = -0.59, t = 3.67). The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention (β = 0.01, t =
0.02) is not statistically significant with part-time employees.
113
Figure 4.4: Structural Equation Model: Full-Time Employees
(standardized solution)
114
Figure 4.5: Structural Equation Model: Part-Time Employees
(standardized solution)
115
Correlations between the latent variables have been estimated by the model and
are presented in table 4.35 for full-time employees and in table 4.36 for part-time
employees.
116
117
Table 4.35: Correlation of Latent Variables (η and ξ) derived from the Structural Equation Model
Full-time employees
118
Table 4.36: Correlation of Latent Variables (η and ξ) derived from the Structural Equation Model
Part-time employees
EMPLOYEES 35 YEARS-OF-AGE AND OVER VERSUS UNDER 35 YEARS-OF-AGE
Figures 4.6 and 4.7 illustrate the structural equation model based upon the age of
the respondents. Eighty-three-and-six-tenths percent (83.6%) of the firm’s associates are
under thirty-five (35) years-of-age while sixteen-and-four-tenths percent (16.4%) are
thirty-five (35) years-of-age or older. The following relationships between latent
variables (η and ξ variables) are statistically significant in the model with employees over
thirty-five (35) years-of-age: LMX and job satisfaction (γ = 0.44, t = 6.86),
psychological empowerment and job satisfaction (γ = 0.41, t = 6.72), psychological
empowerment and turnover intention (γ = -0.79, t = -2.59). The relationship between job
satisfaction and turnover intention is not statistically significant for associates thirty-five
(35) years-of-age and over (β = 0.58, t = 0.86). The following relationships are
statistically significant with associates under the age of thirty-five (35) years-of-age:
LMX and job satisfaction (γ = 0.33, t = 8.92), psychological empowerment and job
satisfaction (γ = 0.42, t = 12.13), psychological empowerment and turnover intention (γ =
-0.47, t = -5.17). The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention (β = 0.33, t = -2.04) is not statistically significant with employees under thirty-five (35) yearsof-age.
119
Figure 4.6: Structural Equation Model: Thirty-Five (35) Years-of-Age and Over
(standardized solution)
120
Figure 4.7: Structural Equation Model: Under Thirty-Five (35) Years-of-Age
(standardized solution)
121
Correlations between the latent variables have been estimated by the model and
are presented in table 4.37 for employees over thirty-five (35) years-of-age and in table
4.38 for employees under thirty-five (35) years-of-age.
122
123
Table 4.37: Correlation of Latent Variables (η and ξ) derived from the Structural Equation Model
Employees over 35 years-of-age
124
Table 4.38: Correlation of Latent Variables (η and ξ) derived from the Structural Equation Model
Employees under 35 years-of-age
MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATIVE ASSOCIATES
The structural equation model is illustrated in figure 4.8 utilizing the responses of
management and administrative associates. Ninety-seven (97) of the respondents
identified themselves as salaried management or administrative personnel. The structural
equation model had poor fit for this sub-group of employees (RMSEA = 0.112). The
relationships between LMX and job satisfaction (γ = 0.34, t = 4.75) as well as the
relationship between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction (γ = 0.41, t = 7.21)
are statistically significant.
125
Figure 4.8: Structural Equation Model: Management Employees
(standardized solution)
126
Correlations between the latent variables have been estimated by the model and
are presented in table 4.39 for management and administrative employees.
127
128
Table 4.39: Correlation of Latent Variables (η and ξ) derived from the Structural Equation Model
Management and administrative employees
INDUSTRY TENURE OF OVER TEN (10) YEARS
Figure 4.9 illustrates the structural equation model for employees with more than
ten (10) years of industry tenure. Approximately twelve percent (11.5%) of the
respondents have been employed more than ten (10) years in the restaurant, retail, or food
service industry. With this subset of the data, the model does not exhibit close fit
(RMSEA = 0.088). The only latent variable (ξ or η) with a statistically significant
relationship with turnover intention is the indirect relationship between psychological
empowerment and turnover intention, which is mediated by job satisfaction (t = -6.48).
129
Figure 4.9: Structural Equation Model: 10+ years of Industry Tenure
(standardized solution)
130
Correlations between the latent variables have been estimated by the model and
are presented in table 4.40 employees with over ten (10) years tenure in the restaurant,
retail, or food service industry.
131
132
Table 4.40: Correlation of Latent Variables (η and ξ) derived from the Structural Equation Model
Employees with over 10 years of industry tenure
The findings from the analyses of the various sub-groups identified above are
summarized in tables 4.41 (summary of direct relationships), 4.42 (squared multiple
correlations for direct relationships), 4.43 (summary of indirect relationships), and 4.44
(squared multiple correlations for indirect relationships).
133
134
Table 4.41: Model Fit, Sample Size and Estimates of Path Coefficients for Direct Relationships
(for total sample and each subset of the sample)
135
Table 4.42: Squared Multiple Correlations for Direct Relationships
(for total sample and each subset of the sample)
136
Table 4.43: Estimates of Path Coefficients for Indirect Relationships
(for total sample and each subset of the sample)
137
Table 4.44: Squared Multiple Correlations for Indirect Relationships
(for total sample and each subset of the sample)
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
SUMMARY
According to the National Restaurant Association (2004), restaurant operators
struggle to appropriately staff their operations. High employee turnover exacerbates this
challenge. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between LeaderMember Exchange (LMX), psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and turnover
intention in an upscale, limited-service restaurant environment. Insights from this study
may help practitioners take appropriate steps to ameliorate voluntary employee turnover.
In addition, it provides researchers with additional insight into the relationship between
these constructs, particularly within the context of an industry that employs a large
proportion of part-time and young workers under thirty-five (35) years-of-age, which
includes many hospitality and retail businesses.
The participants in this study are employed by a firm that operates more than fifty
(50) franchised, upscale, limited-service restaurants in two Midwestern and one Western
state. In addition to providing demographic information, over one-thousand (1,000)
participants completed an on-line survey that measured their affective cognitions relative
138
to the quality of their relationship with their leader, their level of psychological
empowerment, their satisfaction with their job, and their turnover intentions utilizing
reliable, validated instruments. Chi-square testing revealed that the respondents were
younger and more educated than generally found within the restaurant industry with
nearly sixty-seven percent (66.5%) of the respondents between the ages of eighteen and
twenty-four (18 – 24) and forty-four percent (44.2%) having taken some college level
courses versus forty-seven percent (47%) and twenty-two percent (22%) respectively
industry-wide. In addition, nearly sixty-seven percent (66.5%) of the non-management
respondents are employed on a part-time basis versus approximately fifty percent (50%)
within the restaurant industry as a whole.
SPSS, version 13, and LISREL 8.8 were utilized to analyze the data. Principle
component analysis was utilized to determine the factor structure of LMX, psychological
empowerment, and job satisfaction. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to
test for between group differences based upon the demographic variables and Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) was utilized to better understand the relationships between the
various constructs and dimensions of these constructs. The structural equation model
was utilized to test the proposed hypotheses, with the exception of hypothesis four (H4)
since it proposed a curvilinear relationship; non-linear regression analysis was utilized to
test this hypothesis.
The following six hypotheses were tested as illustrated in the structural equation
model displayed in figure 5.1. The findings relative to the statistical significance of the
relationships are highlighted.
139
Figure 5.1: Illustration of the Relationships between Latent Variables with
Hypotheses Findings Noted
H1: The quality of the LMX relationship, as perceived by a subordinate and
measured by the three dimensions of respect, trust, and obligation, will be directly
related to the level psychological empowerment.
H2: The quality of the LMX relationship, as perceived by a subordinate and
measured by the three dimensions of respect, trust, and obligation, will be directly
related to the level of job satisfaction.
With this sample of restaurant workers, the LMX-7 did not display a threedimensional factor structure; no factor structure emerged. The first hypothesis (H1) was
140
supported; a positive relationship was found to exist between the quality of the LeaderMember Exchange (LMX) and psychological empowerment. In addition, the second
hypothesis (H2) was also supported since a positive relationship was found to exist
between LMX and job satisfaction.
H3: Psychological empowerment, measured in terms of four dimensions of
meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact, will be positively related to
job satisfaction.
The proposed four (4) factor structure of psychological empowerment condensed
to a three (3) factor structure with the current sample and a positive relationship was
found to exist between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. Consequently,
support was found for hypothesis three (H3).
H4: The relationship between the quality of the LMX relationship, as perceived
by a subordinate and measured by the three dimensions of respect, trust, and
obligation, and turnover intention will be curvilinear (U-shaped) with a moderate
quality level producing the lowest level of turnover intention and low or high
quality exchanges generating relatively higher levels of turnover intention.
Relative to the fourth hypothesis (H4), a weak, but significant, relationship was
found to exist between the quality of the LMX relationship and turnover intention as a
result of the regression analysis. The exact nature of this relationship, however, is not
clear. Both the linear as well as the curvilinear (U-shape) models are statistically
significant; yet neither model is particularly explicative, explaining only nineteen to
twenty percent (19% - 20%) of the variance in turnover intention in both cases. A cubic
141
model (S-shaped) is not statistically significant. The structural equation model, however,
did not support a linear relationship between LMX and turnover intention. Consequently,
strong support is not found for hypothesis four (H4).
H5: Psychological empowerment, measured utilizing the four dimensions of
meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact, will be negatively related
to turnover intention.
Psychological empowerment is negatively related to turnover intention as
proposed in hypothesis five (H5) based upon the structural equation model.
H6: Turnover intention will be negatively related to job satisfaction.
Surprisingly, support is not found for hypothesis six (H6) based upon the
structural equation model, although a statistically significant negative correlation is
calculated when utilizing the composite variables. The relationship between job
satisfaction and turnover intention is not statistically significant within the SEM utilizing
the entire sample or with any subset of the data with one exception: full-time employees.
Job satisfaction does exhibit a statistically significant negative linear relationship with
turnover intention with the participating firm’s full-time associates.
Significant differences were found in the mean scores of the survey items based
upon gender, age, employment tenure, industry tenure, employment status (full-time
versus part-time), and job function (hourly versus management) with the effect size being
greatest based upon age (under 35 years-of-age or 35 years-of-age-and-over) and industry
tenure (under 10 years or 10 years-and-over). Consequently, the structural equation
model was also utilized to evaluate the relationship between the variables for various
142
subsets of the data as summarized in tables 4.41, 4.42, 4.43, and 4.44, which are found on
pages 134 - 137.
DISCUSSION
As anticipated, a positive relationship exists between Leader-Member Exchange
(LMX) and psychological empowerment. These two factors provide a strong indication
as to the level of job satisfaction a worker will enjoy; LMX (γ = 0.36, t = 11.30) and
psychological empowerment (γ = 0.41, t = 13.32) enjoy strong, statistically significant
linear relationships with job satisfaction with a squared multiple correlation of eighty-five
hundredths (R2 = 0.85) for the entire sample. This relationship is consistent within each
of the sub-sets analyzed, including full-time and part-time workers, employees over and
under thirty-five (35) years-of-age as well as management employees and those with over
ten (10) years of industry experience. The combined effect of LMX and psychological
empowerment on job satisfaction generates squared multiple correlation values exceeding
eighty-three-hundredths (R2 = 0.83) for each of the sub-sets analyzed (see table 4.41a).
The dimensions of psychological empowerment that are most closely correlated with job
satisfaction are influence (r = 0.70) and meaning (r = 0.74), as opposed to competence (r
= 0.42), which implies that restaurant workers may be more satisfied with their jobs if
their input is valued, if they have some flexibility in how they fulfill their job
responsibilities, and if their work is meaningful or important to them.
143
Explaining the factors that influence turnover intention, however, proves to be
more difficult. Psychological empowerment has the strongest and most consistent
relationship with turnover intention. Psychological empowerment has a statistically
significant direct negative relationship (γ = -0.51, t = -5.96) on turnover intention as well
as a statistically significant indirect relationship (γTOI*JS = -0.64, t = -14.99), which is
mediated through job satisfaction. The relationship between psychological empowerment
and turnover intention holds for all sub-sets of the data other than for management
employees and associates with ten (10) or more years of industry experience; with these
two groups, the relationship is not statistically significant. The dimensions of
psychological empowerment that have the strongest negative correlations with turnover
intention are meaning (r = -0.64) and influence (r = -0.60); competence (r = -0.37) has a
weak negative correlation. The two dimensions that are important in driving job
satisfaction, meaning and influence, have also emerged as important elements in
maximizing employee retention.
The exact nature of the relationship between LMX and turnover intention remains
equivocal; LMX does not have a statistically significant linear relationship, directly or
indirectly, with turnover intention for this sample of restaurant workers or any subsets of
the data when the structural equation model to evaluate the relationship. However, both a
weak linear relationship (β = -0.48, t = -15.61) and a curvilinear relationship (an inverted
U-shape) (β = -0.08, t = -2.83) were found to be statistically significant in the regression
analysis, which utilizes composite variables as opposed to the preferred latent variable
144
structure. The bi-variate correlation (r = -0.60), which utilizes the composite variables, is
moderate as is the estimate from the structural equation model (r = -0.53).
The current literature indicates that job satisfaction is the most reliable predictor
of turnover intention, although the variance explained is generally small due to the
complexity involved in making the decision to change jobs with squared multiple
correlations (R2 ) ranging from -0.18 to -0.28 in meta-analytic studies (Trevor, 2001). In
the present study, however, job satisfaction is not a statistically significant predictor of
turnover intention (β = -0.31, t = -1.89) for the data set as a whole; when combined with
psychological empowerment and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), these factors
generate a squared multiple correlation of fifty-six-hundredths (R2 = 0.56). Job
satisfaction is found to be a statistically significant predictor only among full-time
associates (β= -0.86, t = -3.51). The unique composition of the participating firm’s
workforce, with sixty-one percent (60.9%) of the total workforce or sixty-seven percent
(66.5%) of the non-management workforce being employed part-time, may be the reason
for this finding. Part-time workers may be less dependent upon the income earned from
their employment with the firm, since it may merely provide supplemental income. In
addition, they may have fewer demands or expectations of the job, since it is not a careeroriented position, thereby making the decision to leave the firm less complex.
Consequently, the turnover decision may be driven by factors unrelated to the job itself
for many part-time employees.
Extrinsic satisfaction, which includes satisfaction with advancement
opportunities, company policies and practices, and compensation, has the strongest
145
correlation with job satisfaction for full-time employees (r = 0.96). In addition, meaning
(r = 0.83) and influence (r = 0.82) enjoy strong relationships with psychological
empowerment for this same group. Consequently, addressing these items with full-time
associates may improve job satisfaction and ultimately reduce turnover intention among
full-time associates. However, other factors may need to be explored since the current
variables of interest, LMX, psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction generate a
squared multiple correlation of fifty-eight hundredths (R2 = 0.58) in their attempt to
explain the turnover intentions of full-time associates.
Analysis of sub-groups within the population, in which statistically significant
differences were found in the mean scores of the variables, reveals that the structural
equation model does not closely fit the data for full-time associates (RMSEA = 0.083),
employees thirty-five (35) years-of-age and older (RMSEA = 0.079), management
personnel (RMSEA = 0.112), and those employees with ten (10) or more years of
industry experience (RMSEA = 0.088). This indicates that job satisfaction and turnover
intentions may be driven by different factors for these groups of employees as compared
to the associates that are employed part-time or in less career-oriented positions, which
account for a majority of the employees in this sample.
146
RECOMMENDATIONS
Many service firms, including restaurants, hospitality, and retail businesses,
employ a large proportion of young, part-time associates in order to minimize the costs of
employee benefits, reduce overtime, and as a result of the low wage rates associated with
these jobs. In addition, employing a large number of part-time workers allows the firm to
accommodate and staff appropriately for fluctuations in business volumes. These
findings suggest that firms employing a large proportion of young, part-time associates
should carefully analyze the cost of employee turnover in order to determine if some of
these savings might be offset by employing more full-time workers over the age of thirtyfour (34) since they may be less likely to leave their jobs, particularly if they have a long
tenure (10+ years) in the industry. These workers may be motivated to remain with the
firm as long as the importance of their work is reinforced and they receive competitive
compensation and opportunities to advance with the firm. In reality, however, these
workers may not be available in most job markets. In addition, career advancement
opportunities may be more limited due to the less hierarchical or flatter organizational
structures of today’s business firms, particularly in franchise organizations such as the
firm participating in the present research.
Consequently, more research needs to be conducted so that employers have a
better understanding of what drives and motivates the behavior of young, part-time
workers. How do these workers differ from traditional, full-time wage earners? What
factors drive job satisfaction and reduce turnover with this workforce? Although
147
turnover may be inevitable with this employee base, particularly since many workers in
this sample appear to be pursuing additional education, nearly fifty-five percent (54.5%)
of the respondents in this study have been employed by the firm by less than one year,
indicating that approximately half of the firms’ workforce leaves the firm each year, after
allowing for the firm’s growth, while the distribution of the respondents by industry
tenure makes it clear that many may be moving on to other jobs within the industry. By
lengthening the average tenure of associates with the firm, a business firm may be able to
reduce recruiting and training costs, as well as the costs associated with the lower
employee productivity of employees that are not fully competent or engaged in their
employment with the firm. The present research serves as a starting point for answering
these questions.
Young, part-time workers may be more satisfied with the job if they have a
positive, high-quality relationship with their boss, find their work meaningful or
important, and if they are extrinsically satisfied. In addition, a young, part-time worker is
also less likely to leave their job if they feel that their work is important and that they
have some influence in their workgroup. Yet, it is interesting to note that the level of
extrinsic satisfaction, relational satisfaction and overall job satisfaction drops
significantly after the first ninety (90) days of employment while turnover intention
increases significantly. Perhaps employees are receiving increased attention from
managers and co-workers during this initial period of employment leading to increased
job satisfaction or they are negatively impacted by the affective cognitions of their coworkers over the course of their socialization process with the firm. Regardless of the
148
cause, it is clear that job satisfaction and turnover intentions are significantly and
negatively impacted during an employee’s initial ninety (90) days with the firm. It may
be beneficial for firms to review the socialization process to ensure that positive LMX
relationships are established during the initial ninety (90) days and that high quality
relationships are created that extend beyond this initial period of employment. In
addition, it is important for employees to be made aware how important their work is to
the success of the firm in order to cultivate an understanding of the meaningfulness of
their work. In order to reduce the cost of turnover within the participating firm, steps
must be taken to ensure that positive affective cognitions regarding the importance of the
work itself and the level of influence the employee perceives to have in their work group
extend beyond the first ninety (90) days of employment.
Dimensions of psychological empowerment are also important with full-time
employees; however, job satisfaction, particularly the intrinsic dimension, plays a more
dominant role in influencing turnover intention among traditional, full-time workers,
which includes management and supervisory personnel. The full-time workers
presumably serve as the core employee group that train and direct the part-time workers.
Therefore, the firm cannot afford to focus solely on the psychological empowerment
factors in order to reduce turnover among the part-time employees while neglecting the
factors that influence job satisfaction for the full-time associates. Consequently, a
balanced approach must be taken in order to maximize retention among all employee
groups.
149
LIMITATIONS
The present research is limited in its applicability to many other employment
settings. These findings may not be consistent with studies conducted within industries
that employ a workforce comprised of a larger proportion of full-time, older, more
educated workers. It may be useful to replicate this study in such settings in order to
determine how changes in these demographic variables may alter the outcomes. These
findings may only be able to be generalized within other industries, such as the retail
industry, which employs a workforce with a similar demographic composition. In
addition, its generalizability to the restaurant industry as a whole may be limited since a
convenience sample was utilized in which are all the respondents are employed by the
same firm.
150
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, J. S.; ed. Berkowitz, L. (1965) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology;
Academic Press; New York
Ananiadou, K.; Jenkings, A.; Wolf, A. (2004) Basic skills and workplace learning: what
do we actually know about their benefits?; Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 289 308
Auer, P.; Cazes, S. (2000) The resilience of the long-term employment relationship:
Evidence from the industrialized countries; International Labour Review; 139 (4), 379 408
Bandura, A. (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency; American Psychologist;
37, 122 - 147
Bedian, A.G.; Armenakis, A.A. (1998) The Cesspool Syndrome: How Dreck Floats to the
Top of Declining Organizations; Academy of Management Executive; 12, 58 - 67
Bernhardt, Kenneth L.; Donthu, Naveen; Kennett, Pamela A. (2000) A Longitudinal
Analysis of Satisfaction and Profitability; Journal of Business Research; 47, 161 - 171
Blau, G. (1994) Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search behavior;
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes; 59, 288 - 312
Blau, P.M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life; Wiley Publishing; New York
Brief, A. B.; Aldag, R. J. (1977) The intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: toward conceptual
clarity; Academy of Management Review; 2, 496 - 500
Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. (1993) Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit in K.A.
Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.); Testing Structural Equation Models; Sage, Newbury Park,
CA; 136 - 161
Brymer, R.A. (1991) Employee Empowerment: a guest driven leadership strategy;
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly; 32 (1), 58 – 68
Carbery, R.; Garavan, T.; O’Brien, F.; McDonnell, J. (2003) Predicting hotel managers’
turnover cognitions, Journal of Managerial Psychology; 18(7), 649 - 679
151
Carless, S. A. (2004) Does Psychological Empowerment Mediate the Relationship
Between Psychological Climate and Job Satisfaction; Journal of Business and
Psychology; 18(4), 405 – 425
Carsten, J.M.; Spector, P.E. (1987) Unemployment, Job Satisfaction and Employee
Turnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model; Journal of Applied Psychology;
72, 374 - 381
Cascio, W. F. (2000) Changes in Workers, Work, and Organizations; from Bus-MHR
956 Doctoral Seminar Readings, Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State
University; Spring, 2004
Cascio, W. F. (1993) Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned?, Academy
of Management Executive, 7(1), 95 - 10
Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., Stone, E. F. (1992) Job Satisfaction: How People Feel About
Their Jobs and How It Affects Their Job Performance; Lexington Books, MacMillan,
Inc., New York
Clark, J. A. (2000) Frederick Winslow Taylor: The first human relations advocate?;
Public Administration Times; 23(12), 7 - 8
Conger, J. A.; Kanungo, R. N. (1988) The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice; Academy of Management Review; 13(3), 471 - 482
Dansereau, F.; Graen, G.; Haga, B. (1975) A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process;
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance; 13, 46 - 78
Erdogan, B.; Kraimer, M. L.; Liden, R. C. (2002) Person-Organization Fit and Work
Attitudes: The Moderating Role of Leader-Member Exchange; Academy of Management
Proceedings; OB: F1 – F6
Fulford, M. D.; Enz, C. A. (1995) The impact of empowerment on service employees;
Journal of Managerial Issues; 7(2), 161 - 175
Fuller, J. B.; Morrison, R.; Jones, L.; Bridger, D.; Brown, V. (1999) The Effects of
Psychological Empowerment on Transformational Leadership and Job Satisfaction; The
Journal of Social Psychology; 139(3), 389 - 391
Gerstner, C. R.; Day, D. V. (1997) Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange
Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues; Journal of Applied Psychology; 82(6), 827 844
152
Ghiselli, Richard F.; La Lopa, Joseph M.; Bai, Billy (2001) Job Satisfaction, Life
Satisfaction, and Turnover Intent Among Foodservice Managers; Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Quarterly; April 2001, 28 - 37
Giles, W. F.; Field, H. S. (1978) Effects of amount, format, and location of demographic
information on questionnaire return rate and response bias of sensitive and nonsensitive
items; Personnel Psychology; 31(3), 549 - 559
Gomez, C.; Rosen, B. (2001) The Leader-Member Exchange as a Link Between
Managerial Trust and Employee Empowerment; Group & Organization Management;
March, 26(1), 53 - 69
Good, L. K.; Sisler, G. F.; Gentry, J. W. (1988) Antecedents of Turnover Intentions
Among Retail Management Personnel; Journal of Retailing; 64(3), 295 – 314
Graen, G. B.; Hoel, W.; Liden, R. C. (1982) Role of Leadership in the Employee
Withdrawal Process; Journal of Applied Psychology; 67(6), 868 – 872
Graen, G. B.; Novak, M. A., Sommerkamp, P. (1982) The Effects of Leader-Member
Exchange and Job Design on Productivity and Satisfaction; Organizational Behavior &
Human Performance; 30(1), 109 – 131
Graen, G. B.; Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25-years:
Applying an multi-level multi-domain perspective; Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 – 247
Greenberg, J. (1990) Employee Theft as a Reaction to Underpayment Inequity: The
hidden cost of pay cuts; Journal of Applied Psychology; 75, 285-297
Gustafson, Catherine M. (2002) Employee turnover: a study of private clubs in the USA;
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management; 14(3), 106 - 113
Hancer, M.; George, R. T. (2001) An Analysis of Psychological Empowerment and Job
Satisfaction for Restaurant Employees; Doctoral Dissertation; The Ohio State
University: Department of Consumer Sciences; College of Human Ecology
Hancer, M.; George, R. T. (2003) Psychological empowerment of non-supervisory
employees working in full-service restaurants; International Journal of Hospitality
Management; 22(1), 3 - 16
Hancer, M.; George, R. T. (2004) Factor Structure of the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire Short Form for Restaurant Employees; Psychological Reports; 94, 357 362
153
Hancer, M.; George, R. T.; Kim, B. (2005) An Examination of Dimensions of
Psychological Empowerment Scale for Service Employees; Psychological Reports;
97(2), 667 – 672
Harris, K. J.; Kacmar, K. M.; Witt, L. A. (2005) An examination of the curvilinear
relationship between leader-member exchange and intent to turnover; Journal of
Organizational Behavior; 26, 363 – 378
Harris, K.J.; Kacmar, K.C. (2006) Too Much of a Good Thing: The Curvilinear Effect of
Leader-Member Exchange on Stress; The Journal of Social Psychology; 146(1), 65 – 84
Hechanova, M. R. M.; Alampay, R. B. A.; Franco, E. P. (2006) Psychological
Empowerment, Job Satisfaction, and Performance among Filipino Service Workers;
Asian Journal of Social Psychology; 9(1), 72 - 78
Henne, D.; Locke, E. A. (1985) Job Dissatisfaction: What are the Consequences?;
International Journal of Psychology; 20, 221 - 240
Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; Synderman, B.B. (1959) The Motivation to Work; Wiley
Publishing; New York
Heskett, J. L.; Jones, T. O.; Loveman, G. W.; Sasser, Jr., W. E.; Schlesinger, L. A.;
(1994) Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work; Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, 164 - 174
Heskett, J. L.; Sasser, W. E.; Schlesinger, L. A. (1997) The Service Profit Chain: How
Leading Companies Link Profit and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction, and Value, The Free
Press, New York, NY
Hinkin, T.; Tracey, J. B. (2000) The Cost of Turnover; Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Quarterly; June; 14 - 21
Hom, P.W.; Griffeth, R.W. (1991) Structural Equations Modeling Test of a Turnover
Theory: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analyses; Journal of Applied Psychology,
June, 76(3), 350-366
Hwang, Ing-San; Kuo, Jyh-Huei (2006) Effects of Job Satisfaction and Perceived
Alternative Employment Opportunities on Turnover Intention – An Examination of
Public Sector Organizations; The Journal of American Academy of Business; March;
8(2), 254 - 259
Kim, B. P.; George, R. T. (2005) The relationship between leader-member
exchange(LMX) and psychological empowerment: A quick casual restaurant employee
154
correlation study; Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research; November, 29(4), 468 483
Koberg, C. S.; Boss, R. W.; Senjem, J. C.; Goodman, E. A. (1999) Antecedents and
Outcomes of Empowerment: Empirical Evidence from the Health Care Industry; Group
& Organization Management; 24(1), 71 – 91
Konczak, L. J.; Stelly, D. J.; Trusty, M. L. (2000) Defining and Measuring Empowering
Leader Behaviors: Development of an Upward Feedback Instrument; Educational &
Psychological Measurement; 60(2), 301 - 313
Koys, D. J. (2001) The Effects of Employee Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship
Behavior, and Turnover on Organizational Effectiveness: A Unit-Level, Longitudinal
Study; Personnel Psychology; 54, 101 – 114
Lambert, E. G.; Hogan, N. L.; Barton, S. M. (2001) The Impact of Job Satisfaction on
Turnover Intent: A Test of a Structural Measurement Models in a National Sample of
Workers; Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233 - 251
Larrabee, J. H.; Janney, M. A.; Ostrow, C. L.; Withrow, M. L.; Hobbs, Jr., G. R.; Burant,
C. (2003) Predicting Registered Nurse Job Satisfaction and Intent to Leave; Journal of
Nursing Administration; 33(5), 271 – 283
Laschinger, H. K. S.; Finegan, J. E.; Shamian, J.; Wilk, P. (2004) A longitudinal analysis
of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction; Journal of
Organizational Behavior; 25, 527 - 545
Lashley, C. (2000), Empowerment through involvement: a case study of TGI Fridays
restaurants; Personnel Review, 29(6), 791 - 815
Liden, R. C.; Graen, G. (1980) Generalizability of the Vertical Dyad Linkage Model of
Leadership; Academy of Management Journal; 23(3), 451 - 465
Liden, R. C.; Wayne, S. J.; Sparrowe, R. T. (2000) An Examination of the Mediating
Role of Psychological Empowerment on the Relations Between the Job, Interpersonal
Relationships, and Work Outcomes; Journal of Applied Psychology; 85(3), 407 - 416
Liden, R. C.; Wayne, S. J.; Stilwell, D. (1993) A longitudinal study on the early
development of leader-member exchanges; Journal of Applied Psychology; 78(4), 662 –
674
Locke, E. A.; Latham G. P. (1990) Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light at the End of
the Tunnel; Psychological Science, July, 1(4), 240 – 246
155
Locke, E. A. (1976) ed. Dennette, M.D.; The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction;
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1297 - 1349
Maslow, A.H. (1943) A theory of human motivation; Psychological Review;50, 370 –
396
McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise; McGraw-Hill; New York
Milman, A.; Ricci, P. (2004) Predicting job retention of hourly employees in the lodging
industry; Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management; 11(1), 28 - 41
Mitchel, James O. (1981) The Effect of Intentions, Tenure, Personal, and Organizational
Variables on Managerial Turnover; Academy of Management Journal; 24(4), 742 - 751
Mitchell, T. R.; Lee, T. W. (2001) The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Turnover and Job
Embeddedness: Foundations for a Comprehensive Theory of Attachment; Research in
Organizational Behavior, 23, 189 - 246
Mobley, W.H. (1977) Intermediate Linkages in the Relationship Between Job
Satisfaction and Employee Turnover; Journal of Applied Psychology; 62, 237 – 240
Muchinsky, P.M.; Morrow, P.C. (1980) A Multidisciplinary Model of Voluntary
Employee Turnover; Journal of Vocational Behavior; 17, 263-290
Mobley, W. H. (1982) Some Unanswered Questions in Turnover and Withdrawal
Research; Academy of Management Review; 7(1), 111 - 116
Morrow, P. C.; Suzuki, Y.; Crum, M. R.; Ruben, R.; Pautsch, G. (2005) The role of
leader-member exchange in high turnover work environments; Journal of Managerial
Psychology; 20(8), 681 – 694
National Restaurant Association (2006) State of the Restaurant Industry Workforce: An
Overview; available on-line at www.restaurant.org, accessed June, 2006
Paul, A.K.; Anantharaman, R.N. (2003) Impact of people management practices on
organizational performance: analysis of a causal model; International Journal of Human
Resource Management; 14(7), 1246 - 1266
Porter, L. W.; Steers, R. M. (1973) Organizational, Work, and Personal Factors in
Employee Turnover and Absenteeism; Psychological Bulletin; 80, 151 - 176
Price, J. L. (1977) The Study of Turnover; Iowa State University Press
156
Quinn, R. E.; Spreitzer, G. M. (1997) The Road to Empowerment: Seven Questions
Every Leader Should Consider; Organizational Dynamics; 37 - 49
Quinn, R. P., Mangione, T. W. (1973) Evaluating weighted models of measuring job
satisfaction; a Cinderella Story; Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 1
- 23
Rice, R. W., Gentile, D. B., McFarlin, D. A. (1991) Facet Importance and Job
Satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 31 - 49
Scandura, T. A.; Graen, G. B. (1984) Moderating effects of initial leader-member
exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention; Journal of Applied
Psychology; 69(3), 428 – 436
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; Academy
of Management Journal; 47(3), 332 - 349
Sheridan, J.E.; Abelson, M.A. (1983) Cusp Catastrophe Model of Turnover; Academy of
Management Journal; 26, 418 - 436
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995a) Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation; Academy of Management Journal; 38(5), 1442 – 1465
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995b) An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal
empowerment in the workplace; American Journal of Community Psychology; 23(5), 601
- 629
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996) Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment;
Academy of Management Journal, Apr, 39(2), 483 – 504
Spreitzer, G. M.; 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 – 205
Staples, D. S.; Higgins, C. A. (1998) A Study of the Impact of Factor Importance
Weightings on Job Satisfaction Measures; Journal of Business and Psychology; 13(2),
211 - 231
Steel, R. P. (2002) Turnover Theory at the Empirical Interface: Problems of Fit and
Function; Academy of Management Review; 27(3), 346 - 360
Steers, R.M. & Mowday, R.T. (1981) Employee Turnover and Post-Decision
Accommodation Process; Research in Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 235 – 281
157
Stringer, L. (2006) The Link Between the Quality of the Supervisor-Employee
Relationship and the Level of the Employee’s Job Satisfaction; Public Organization
Review; 6(2), 125 - 142
Thomas, K. W.; Velthouse, B. A. (1990) Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An
‘Interpretive’ Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation; Academy of Management Review,
15(4), 666 – 682
Thorlakson, A. J. H.; Murray, R. P. (1996) An Empirical Study of Empowerment in the
Workplace; Group & Organization Management; 21(1), 67 -83
Trevor, C. O. (2001) Interactions Among Actual Ease of Movement Determinants and
Job Satisfaction in the Prediction of Voluntary Turnover; Academy of Management
Journal; 44(4), 621 -638
Vecchio, R. P.; Griffeth, R. W.; Hom, P. W. (1986) The predictive utility of the vertical
dyad linkage approach; Journal of Social Psychology; 126(5), 617 - 625
Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and Motivation; Wiley Publishing; New York
Wat, D.; Shaffer, M. A. (2005) Equity and relationship quality influences on
organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and
empowerment; Personnel Review;34(4), 406 – 422
Weiss, D.J.; Dawis, R.V.; England, G.W.; Lofquist, L.H. (1967) Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire; Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation;
(Whole No. XXII)
Wildes, V. J. (2005) Stigma in food service work: How it affects restaurant servers’
intention to stay in the business or recommend a job to another; Tourism and Hospitality
Research; 5(3), 213 – 233
Wilhelm, C. C.; Herd, A. M.; Steiner, D. D. (1993) Attributional conflict between
managers and subordinates: An investigation of leader-member exchange effects;
Journal of Organizational Behavior; 14(6), 531 – 544
Wright, T. A.; Cropanzano, R. (1998) Emotional Exhaustion as a Predictor of Job
Performance and Voluntary Turnover; Journal of Applied Psychology; 83, 486 – 491
158
APPENDIX A
DATA COLLECTION EMAILS
INITIAL EMAIL
To: All General Managers
From: Company President
Re: Employee Survey
High employee turnover continues to be a challenge not only in our industry, but
within our organization, which costs our firm hundreds-of-thousands of dollars each year.
As a result, we have agreed to participate in a study being conducted by Michael Collins,
a Ph.D. Candidate at The Ohio State University, through which he will look to provide
some possible insight relative to employee turnover with our firm. This study is being
supervised by an Ohio State University faculty member from Michael’s graduate
advisory committee.
Consequently, I would like to encourage you as well as each of your managers,
supervisors and associates to complete an employee survey which can be accessed by
utilizing the following link:
http://websurveyor.net/wsb.dll/40351/employeesatisfactionsurvey.htm
159
This online survey will be available until December 1, 2006. Please allow
associates to access the survey from company computers in a confidential setting. This
web address has been added to our “white sheet” of permitted websites.
Rest assured, the information obtained will be reported back to the firm in
aggregate form (no individual survey results will be received by us), which will ensure
the confidentiality of each associate’s responses. As a result, I ask that you encourage
each associate to be candid and thorough in their response.
Thank you for your assistance with this important matter.
160
FOLLOW-UP EMAIL
To: All General Managers
From: Company President
Re: Employee survey – follow-up
Thank you for encouraging your managers, supervisors, and associates to
complete the on-line employee survey being conducted by Michael Collins with The
Ohio State University. To date, XXX responses have been received; this represents a
XX% participation rate by our associates.
Our goal is to obtain 100% participation, since we value the contribution of each
of our associates. Consequently, I would like you to encourage the associates that have
not yet completed the survey to utilize the following link in order to complete the
process:
http://websurveyor.net/wsb.dll/40351/employeesatisfactionsurvey.htm
The availability of the survey has been extended to December 10, 2006. We look
forward to each associate’s participation. Again, the confidentiality of each associate’s
responses is assured.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
161
APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Associate Satisfaction Survey
At <company name>, our goal is to create a positive work environment in which our associates
can grow both personally and professionally. Your candid responses on the following survey will
help us in our ongoing effort to address your concerns in the workplace.
Consent for Participation in Research
This survey is being conducted by R. Thomas George, Ed.D. and Michael Collins, M.S., from the
Department of Consumer Science at The Ohio State University, in an effort to determine the
relationship between Leader Member Exchange, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction,
and turnover intention in a limited-service restaurant environment.
If you choose to participate, you will be asked to answer a series of questions related to your
current job at <company name>. Participation in the study is voluntary and completion of the
survey will take approximately 10 - 15 minutes. Your individual survey responses will remain
confidential; no information will be collected that allows the researchers or any <company
name> representative to identify an individual associate's responses. Results from the survey will
only be reported in aggregate in combination with other survey responses.
You are under no obligation to participate and can skip any questions that you do not wish to
answer. You may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or repercussion. If you
have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Michael Collins via
email at [email protected] or R. Thomas George via email at [email protected]. Your
questions or concerns will be addressed to your satisfaction.
Thank you for your participation.
Please respond "yes" or "no" to the first three questions.
162
1) I have read and understand the "Consent for Participation in Research".
! Yes
! No
2) I agree to participate in this research.
! Yes
! No
3) I am at least 18 years of age.
! Yes
! No
4) Note: The survey questions for this item (#4) are reproduced by permission.
Copyright 1977, Vocational Psychology Research, University of Minnesota.
Ask yourself: How satisfied am I with this aspect of my job?
On my present job, this is how I feel about...
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
!
!
The chance to work alone on
the job.
!
The chance to do different
things from time to time.
Neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
The way my boss handles
his/her workers.
!
!
!
!
!
The competence of my
supervisor in making decisions.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Being able to keep busy all of
the time.
The chance to be ‘somebody’
in the community.
Being able to do things that
don’t go against my
conscience.
163
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
The way my job provides for
steady employment.
!
!
The chance to do things for
other people.
!
The chance to tell people what
to do.
Neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
The chance to do something
that makes use of my abilities.
!
!
!
!
!
The way company policies are
put into practice.
!
!
!
!
!
My pay and the amount of
work that I do.
!
!
!
!
!
The chances for advancement
on this job.
!
!
!
!
!
The freedom to use my own
judgment.
!
!
!
!
!
The chance to try my own
methods of doing the job.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
The way my co-workers get
along with each other.
!
!
!
!
!
The praise I get for doing a
good job.
!
!
!
!
!
The feeling of accomplishment
I get from the job.
!
!
!
!
!
The working conditions.
164
5) Do you know where you stand with your leader...do you usually know how
satisfied your leader is with what you do?
!
!
!
!
!
Rarely
Occasionally
Sometimes
Fairly often
Very often
6) How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs?
!
!
!
!
!
Not a bit
A little
A fair amount
Quite a bit
A great deal
7) How well does your leader recognize your potential?
!
!
!
!
!
Not at all
A little
Moderately
Mostly
Fully
8) Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position,
what are the chances that your leader would use his/her power to help you solve
problems in your work?
!
!
!
!
!
None
Small
Moderate
High
Very high
9) Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the
chances that he/she would 'bail you out' at his/her expense?
!
!
!
!
!
None
Small
Moderate
High
Very high
165
10) I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her
decision if he/she were not present to do so.
!
!
!
!
!
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
11) How would you categorize your relationship with your leader?
!
!
!
!
!
Extremely ineffective
Worse than average
Average
Better than average
Extremely effective
12) Please rank the accuracy of the following statements:
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
I am confident
about my ability to
do my job.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
My opinion counts
in work group
decision-making.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
My job activities
are meaningful to
me.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
My job is well
within the scope of
my abilities.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
I decide on how to
go about doing my
work.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
I care about what
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
My work is
important to me
I have the chance
to use personal
initiative in my
work.
Slightly
agree
166
Neutral
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
I have a great deal
of control over my
job.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
I have mastered
the skills to do my
job.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
I have freedom in
determining how
to do my job.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
I have influence
over what happens
in my work group.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
I do on my job.
Slightly
agree
Neutral
Slightly
agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
13) Please rank the accuracy of the following statements:
I plan to be
with the
company quite
a while.
Sometimes I
get so irritated
I think about
changing jobs.
I plan to be
with this
company five
years from
now.
I would turn
down a job
offer from
another
company if it
came
tomorrow.
Not accurate at Not accurate
all
Neutral
Accurate
Extremely
accurate
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
167
14) Please specify your gender.
! Male
! Female
15) Age:
!
!
!
!
!
!
18
25
35
45
55
65
- 24
- 34
- 44
- 54
- 64
or older
16) Highest level of education.
! Did not complete high school or GED
! High school graduate
! Some college/technical school
! College graduate
! Graduate degree
! Other (please specify)
If you selected other please specify:
______________________________________________________________________
17) How long have you been working for this company?
!
!
!
!
!
!
3 months or less
More than 3 months but less than one year
1 - 3 years
3 - 5 years
5 - 10 years
10 years or more
18) How long have you been working in the restaurant, retail, or food service
industry?
!
!
!
!
!
!
3 months or less
More than 3 months but less than one year
1 - 3 years
3 - 5 years
5 - 10 years
10 years or more
19) Employment status.
! Full-time
! Part-time
168
! Seasonal
20) Primary job function.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Customer service / cashier
Food preparation
Other
Trainer
Supervisor
Assistant Manager
General Manager
District Manager
Administrative
Note: Some options modified or omitted to avoid identification of the firm.
21) What is your native language?
!
!
!
!
English
Spanish
Rather not say
Other (please specify)
If you selected other please specify:
______________________________________________________________________
22) Please identify your restaurant’s location.
Options omitted to avoid identification of the firm.
23) Please identify your store number (Please note: Individual survey data will NOT
be provided to <name of company>; your confidentiality is assured).
Options omitted to avoid identification of the firm.
If you selected other please specify:
______________________________________________________________________
24) Please feel free to express any additional comments or concerns below:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your participation in this survey. As always, your candor is appreciated.
169