The empowerment expectation–perception gap: An examination of three alternative models

• Author: Sut I. Wong,Bård Kuvaas
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12177
• Date: 01 April 2018
• Published date: 01 April 2018

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The empowerment expectation–perception gap:

An examination of three alternative models

Sut I. Wong

1

|Bård Kuvaas

2

1

Department of Communication and Culture,

BI Norwegian Business School

2

Department of Leadership and Organizational

Behaviour, BI Norwegian Business School

Correspondence

Sut I. Wong, Department of Communication

and Culture, BI Norwegian Business School,

Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway.

Email: sut.i.wong@bi.no

Abstract

Previous empowerment research has focused on subordinate per-

ceptions of empowering leadership and its outcomes. Met‐expecta-

tions theory suggests that subordinate expectations of leader

behaviours are essential in forming their a posteriori evaluations.

To address the lack of investigation of individual expectations in

the empowerment literature, in this study, we explore how

subordinates' empowerment expectations and perceptions combine

to influence their job satisfaction and psychological empowerment

based on three alternative, theoretically derived met‐expectation

models, namely, the disconfirmation model, the ideal‐point model,

and the experiences‐only model. The results of a 2‐stage study of

114 respondents indicate that employees are more satisfied with

their work when perceived empowerment exceeds expectations.

However, both empowerment perceptions and expectations posi-

tively contribute to higher psychological empowerment. We then

discuss implications and directions for future research.

KEYWORDS

cross‐level polynomial regression, empowering leadership, job

satisfaction, met‐expectations,psychological empowerment

1|INTRODUCTION

Empowering leadership refers to a relational leadership style that emphasises leaders' behaviours, which decentralise

power by involving subordinates in decision‐making, removing bureaucratic constraints, and demonstrating confi-

dence in the value and meaning of subordinates' work (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005). Subordinates who are given

greater opportunities for autonomy and participation in decision‐making will manifest superior outcomes (Raub &

Robert, 2010; Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2010). Empowerment is therefore important in developing subordinates'

potential and increasing organisational effectiveness (Ahearne et al., 2005; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Vecchio et al., 2010).

Much research has also stressed that there are certain boundary conditions, such as particular personal and social

attributes, that can enhance or dampen the effects of empowering leadership (Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009;

Maynard, Gilson, & Mathieu, 2012; Raub & Robert, 2010; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006; Vecchio et al., 2010).

Received: 7 March 2017 Revised: 4 October 2017 Accepted: 4 October 2017

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12177

272 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Hum Resour Manag J. 2018;28:272–287.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj

Labianca, Gray, and Brass (2000), in a grounded method study on the empowerment process, pinpointed that individ-

ual expectation as a frame of reference influences how subordinates identify their roles in relation to empowerment.

The way expectations are formed gives meaning to their empowerment experiences (Labianca et al., 2000). This gives

rise to the question of how subordinates may respond when their perceived experiences with their leaders exceed or

fall below their empowerment expectations. Answers to this question may provide valuable insights into the

internalisation process of empowerment. This is important because conceptually, empowering leadership is a neces-

sary but not a sufficient antecedent to explain when and how subordinates may take ownership of the delegated

authority (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997). Research has indicated that subordinates need to value such leadership style

in order for empowering leadership to be effective (Maynard, Mathieu, Marsh, & Ruddy, 2007).

Therefore, the main purpose of the current study is to conceptualise and test three alternative met‐expectation

theoretical models, namely, the disconfirmation model, the ideal‐point model, and the experiences‐only model, which

connect subordinate empowerment expectations, perceived empowerment experiences, and the subsequent psycho-

logical responses, namely, job satisfaction and psychological empowerment. Because subordinates may respond dif-

ferentially to different aspects of job inducements when their expectations are (un)met (Irving & Montes, 2009),

the ways their (un)met empowerment expectations may affect the subsequent job satisfaction and psychological

empowerment could differ. In the current literature, no clear picture exists of how subordinates respond to (un)met

empowerment expectations, especially given the double‐edged nature of job autonomy in relation to work outcome

(Haas, 2010).

Currently, the most dominant work outcomes of met‐expectations research is job satisfaction (Irving & Meyer,

1994; Irving & Montes, 2009; Porter & Steers, 1973), which refers to a pleasurable or positive emotional response

resulting from the appraisal of one's job (Weiss, 2002). In order to extend the current knowledge of met‐expectations

research to the notion of empowerment, we will have to compare the findings of the present study to previous find-

ings from other management domains. Thus, besides the importance of job satisfaction in management research, we

chose to examine job satisfaction because of its role in previous met‐expectations research as an important building

block. In addition to job satisfaction, we also investigated psychological empowerment, which refers to the psycholog-

ical state of being empowered (Spreitzer, 1995). By including psychological empowerment, we respond to the recent

call for research investigating the underlying mechanism between empowering leadership and psychological empow-

erment (Maynard et al., 2012; Raub & Robert, 2010). This link is important, but little is known about how and when

perceptions of empowering leadership lead to subordinates' psychological empowerment (Zhang & Bartol, 2010).

By doing so, this study aims to provide implications on how empowerment practices should be managed in organisa-

tions. This is because implementation of empowerment as opportunity enhancing human resource management

(HRM) practices has shown to be challenging (Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012). Especially empowerment should not

be seen as a one‐size‐fits‐all HRM practice (Wilkinson, 1998). Rather, the way in which employees may view empow-

erment impacts organisational performance indicating their satisfaction with such HRM practices influences their sub-

sequent work effort (Delaney & Huselid, 1996).

2|MET‐EXPECTATIONS THEORY: THE THREE ALTERNATIVE MODELS

There are two major approaches to empowerment in the literature (Maynard et al., 2012). One is social structure

empowerment, such as empowering leadership, which focuses on capturing workers' latent skills by providing them

with the autonomy to make decisions that influence organisational direction and performance (Kanter, 1983). Psycho-

logical empowerment, which refers to an individual sense of control over one's work and work environment (Spreitzer,

2008), is another commonly studied empowerment approach. Based on the conceptual work of Conger and Kanungo

(1988) and Thomas and Velthouse (1990), Spreitzer (1995) developed and validated four cognitions of psychological

empowerment: meaning, competence, self‐determination, and impact. Meaning refers to the value of a work goal or

purpose judged in relation to an individual's own ideals or standards (Spreitzer, 1995). Competence represents a

WONG AND KUVAAS 273