The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

IJCHM
23,6 The effects of employee
empowerment on employee job
satisfaction
784
A study on hotels in Turkey
Received 22 April 2010
Revised 31 July 2010
Elbeyi Pelit
8 October 2010 School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Afyon Kocatepe University,
28 December 2010 Afyonkarahisar, Turkey
18 February 2011
Accepted 26 February 2011 Yüksel Öztürk
Faculty of Tourism, Gazi University, Gölbaşı-Ankara, Turkey, and
Yalçın Arslantürk
Faculty of Commerce and Tourism Education, Gazi University, Gölbaşı-Ankara,
Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – The main objective of this study is to determine the impact of employee empowerment on
job satisfaction. To serve this purpose, empowerment is taken into consideration as two dimensions –
i.e. behavioral and psychological – and the effect of employee empowerment on the level of job
satisfaction was examined by taking these two dimensions into consideration as a whole and
separately.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was employed in order to collect data on job
satisfaction as well as behavioral and psychological empowerment. The data collected were analyzed
through correlation and regression analyses. The study covered 1,854 participants employed at
five-star hotels in Turkey.
Findings – The findings suggest that the most positive aspects related to job satisfaction are
relations with the colleagues and physical conditions, while the most negative aspect is the wage issue,
i.e. unfair payment. Furthermore, correlation and regression analyses indicate that psychological and
behavioral empowerment has a significant effect on job satisfaction, and the effect is much greater
when psychological and behavioral empowerment are taken as a whole.
Research limitations/implications – The major limitation of this study is that it covers the
employees of five-star hotels only. Another important limitation of the study is the exclusion of
variables mentioned in the literature. This apart, it is thought that the study will provide some insights
for managers in terms of enhancing job satisfaction and the effect of empowerment on job satisfaction
as well as making a contribution to the literature.
Originality/value – Studies into the relation between employee empowerment and job satisfaction
on the whole focus on only one aspect of empowerment, i.e. either behavioral empowerment or
psychological empowerment. This study incorporates behavioral and psychological empowerment
International Journal of together as the components of empowerment, unlike previous studies in the literature, in determining
Contemporary Hospitality
Management their effect on job satisfaction.
Vol. 23 No. 6, 2011
pp. 784-802
Keywords Employee empowerment, Behavioral empowerment, Psychological empowerment,
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited Job satisfaction, Employees attitudes, Hotels, Turkey
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/09596111111153475 Paper type Research paper
Introduction Employee job
Definitions of the nature of empowerment have fallen within a common frame in some satisfaction
aspects. On the other hand, despite a common frame being formed, there is no fully
agreed definition of empowerment (Peccei and Rosenthal, 2001; Wilkinson, 1998). The
fact that employee empowerment is closely related to management techniques and
instruments, such as motivation, job enrichment, communication, trust, participative
management, delegation, training and feedback, makes it necessary to examine the 785
concept and its managerial dimension from different perspectives. Authors
approaching the construct from the behavior and relationship side, such as Hales
and Klidas (1998), define empowerment as sharing knowledge, information and power
with subordinates; Cunningham et al. (1996) relegate the power to make a decision in a
manner that will cover employees without the power to make decisions. Conger and
Kanungo (1988) regard empowerment as a motivational concept related to self-efficacy
and define empowerment as improving the feeling of self-efficacy of employees. Conger
and Kanungo (1988) hold that administrative implementations for empowerment make
up only a small portion of empowerment itself, and these implementations will not be
enough alone. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) highlight that empowerment cannot be
accounted for in only one dimension, and that administrative implementations and the
perception of employees should also be taken into consideration. Drawing on the study
by Thomas and Velthouse (1990) defining empowerment as “internal motivation that
can be explained by four perceptive dimensions, which are sense, competence, choice
and impact”, Spreitzer (1995) incorporates these four dimensions in his definition.
Entrepreneurs, managers and researchers in the field of management regard the
employee as the major resource bringing competitive advantage to establishments, and
they are of the opinion that the involvement and empowerment of employees is key to
the success of establishments (Etzioni, 1961; Siegall and Gardner, 2000). When the
nature of empowerment is examined, it is observed that empowerment does yield
beneficial outcomes. When the constituents of employee empowerment are examined,
it is stressed that the construct will yield beneficial results for both employees and
employers (Baruch, 1998). Studies conducted on employee empowerment reveal that it
gives rise to organizational commitment (Han et al., 2009; Kim, 2002; Sigler and
Pearson, 2000; Spreitzer and Mishra, 2002), motivation (Caudron, 1995; Janssen et al.,
1997), performance (Çöl, 2008; Locke, 1991; Sigler and Pearson, 2000) and customer
satisfaction (Bowen and Lawler, 1992; Chebat and Kollias, 2000). The studies
conducted so far have overwhelmingly placed importance on the relationship of
psychological and behavioral empowerment with job satisfaction as separate
constructs. However, when psychological and behavioral empowerment are treated
as a whole, their relationship with job satisfaction will be handled in a more efficient
and effective fashion, in that it is thought to be more comprehensive.
Employee empowerment is a wide-ranging activity, and the way that empowerment
activities are practiced in accordance with its content brings up a relation between the
task performed and the job satisfaction the employees will get. There has been strong
emphasis on the relation between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction in
previous studies (Aryee and Chen, 2006; Corsun and Enz, 1999; Hechanova et al., 2006;
Kuo et al., 2007; Laschinger et al., 2004; Riggs and Knight, 1994; Spreitzer et al., 1997).
Regarding behavioral empowerment, another dimension of empowerment, convenient
communications, an atmosphere of trust, and motivational tools being provided by
IJCHM employers lead to a positive impact in creating job satisfaction (Babin and Boles, 1996;
23,6 Yoon et al. 2001).
The studies conducted so far have overwhelmingly placed importance on the
relation of psychological and behavioral empowerment with job satisfaction as
separate constructs. However, when psychological and behavioral empowerment are
treated as a whole, the relationship with job satisfaction will be handled in a more
786 efficient and effective fashion, in that it is thought to be more comprehensive. Taking
empowerment as two separate constructs, i.e. behavioral and psychological, will
illuminate the relationship between “empowerment” and “job satisfaction” in a more
wide-ranging manner. In terms of the managerial aspects, the main objective is the
conditions required for empowerment. On the other hand, the perception of the
conditions by employees and how employees perceive themselves make up the
psychological dimension of the empowerment. Hence, the two dimensions together will
elaborate the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction.

Literature review and research hypotheses

Despite the fact that there have been numerous definitions on the construct of
employee empowerment, there has been no full consensus on all sides concerned (Lee
and Koh, 2001; Peccei and Rosenthal, 2001). When the literature on employee
empowerment is examined, two fundamental approaches can be observed. The first of
these is the behavioral dimension (Honold, 1997), dealing with the role of top
management in employee empowering. The second is the psychological dimension,
encompassing the perception of employees towards the behavior of superiors (Conger
and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) and the
conditions prepared for them. However, it is possible to see that some researchers
(Appelbaum et al., 1999; Cunningham et al., 1996; Erstad, 1997; Hales and Klidas, 1998;
Kanter, 1993; Psoinos et al., 2000; Randolph and Sahkin, 2002) approach the issue from
the perspective of the tasks and responsibilities of top management and the actions to
be performed by managers. On the other hand, some researchers (Conger and
Kanungo, 1988; Houston and Cowley, 2002; Lashley and McGoldrick, 1994; Lashley,
1996; Spreitzer, 1995; 1996; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) focus on how employees
perceive the activities of empowerment, not on what top management should do to
implement empowerment.
Employee empowerment covers a wide range of activities and the way the
empowerment activities are practiced in accordance with its contents that were
brought up, it is the relation to the job satisfaction that the employees will get.
Employee empowerment is thought to enhance job satisfaction. For example, He et al.
(2010) show that employee empowerment has positive effects on perceived service
quality and job satisfaction. There has been a strong emphasis on the relation between
psychological empowerment and job satisfaction in the studies performed (Aryee and
Chen, 2006; Kuo et al., 2007; Sahin, 2007; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Wang and Lee, 2009).
Behavioral empowerment, convenient communications, an atmosphere of trust, and
motivational tools provided by employers lead to a positive impact on job satisfaction
(Babin and Boles, 1996; Yoon et al., 2001). Employee empowerment brings
decision-makers and employees closer, hence shortening the duration of tasks. Any
type of managerial style that can pave the way for developing the feeling of
self-efficacy will yield employee empowerment. Empowered individuals will have a
more active role in the organization, will take on initiatives, and their participation in Employee job
the activities of the organization will be enhanced. satisfaction
The fact that empowerment is of great importance and benefit to establishments is
the focus of the studies in the field (Baruch, 1998; Chang and Liu, 2008; Conger and
Kanungo, 1988; Erstad, 1997; Gill et al., 2010; Laschinger et al., 1997, 2001; Quinn and
Spreitzer, 1997; Spreitzer, 1995; Wang and Lee, 2009). When this is taken within the
perspective of hotel establishments, it might be held that the importance of 787
empowerment becomes two-fold, in that hotels offer services and, as is well known,
production and consumption occur simultaneously and problems necessitate
on-the-spot solutions to promote customer and job satisfaction (He et al., 2010).
A number of studies (Arvey et al., 1989; Ezzedeen, 2003; Griffin, 2001; Gu and Siu,
2009; Gunlu et al., 2010; Kuşluvan and Kuşluvan, 2005; McCain et al., 2010; Oshagbemi,
2000; Ryu et al., 2010; Spector, 1997; Tepeci and Bartlett, 2002) found that there are a
number of factors affecting job satisfaction related to the establishment, such as
employment status (permanent, temporary), duration of employment, location of the
establishment, content of the work (the work itself, its nature), employment position,
opportunities to sharpen skills, the routine of the work, wages, promotion
opportunities, opportunity for self-development, managerial style of superiors,
relations with colleagues, benefits, job security, physical conditions, shifts,
job-family adaptation, organizational support, participation in the decision-making
process, organizational culture, organizational climate, job orientation, employee
empowerment, understaffing and job-employee adaptation, as well as such
demographic factors as age, gender, marital status, and level of education.
Moreover, authors have underlined the fact that evidence on which factors count
more in job satisfaction is scant. Measuring job satisfaction provides feedback in terms
of diagnosing potential problems as well as productivity issues (Flores and Rodrı́guez,
2008). New findings along with the new implementations make it necessary for
management to employ them in order to be effective and efficient. The effects and
extension of new findings and their managerial implications as well as perceptions of
managers by employees will yield clues to the operational use of new findings and
implementations.
Studies into psychological empowerment (Hechanova et al., 2006; Dewettinck and
Van Ameijde, 2007; Laschinger et al., 2004; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Spreitzer et al., 1997)
pay particular attention to job satisfaction. What is more, studies of behavioral
empowerment (Hardy and O’Sullivan, 1998; Sağlam, 2003) and psychological
empowerment (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Çöl, 2008; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and
Velthouse, 1990) bring the question of the level of impact of behavioral and
psychological empowerment on job satisfaction to the surface. In this perspective, two
hypotheses were developed:
H1. The behavioral empowerment activities implemented in hotel establishments
affect the job satisfaction of employees positively.
H2. The psychological empowerment activities implemented in hotel
establishments affect the job satisfaction of employees positively.
On the other hand, in the literature, studies thus far have focused on either the
psychological dimension or the behavioral dimension of employee empowerment
rather than focusing on both dimensions and their relations to job satisfaction.
IJCHM However, an approach towards taking behavioral and psychological dimension
23,6 together as a whole will contribute more to explaining the relations between
“empowerment” and “job satisfaction”. When the concept of administrative
implementations is dealt with, the administration attempts to provide the conditions
necessary for empowerment. However, this alone is not enough, and the perception of
the employees regarding managerial implementations is of great significance, which
788 makes up the psychological aspect of empowerment (Baker et al., 2007; Bolat, 2003;
Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). In order to perform a comprehensive examination and
analysis on the relation between empowerment and job satisfaction, the concept of
empowerment should be dealt with encompassing both psychological and behavioral
dimensions. Therefore, the two dimensions of empowerment should be taken into
consideration in determining the relationship with job satisfaction. Thus, the third
hypothesis of the study is:
H3. A collective implementation of psychological and behavioral empowerment
activities in hotel establishments affects the job satisfaction of employees at a
higher level than behavioral and psychological empowerment taken
individually.

Methodology
The population of this study consists of the employees of five-star hotels in Turkey.
Due to the facts that hotels in Turkey are spread over a vast geographical area and that
the number of employees in these establishments is very high, a sample group was
chosen. It is likely that access to all the potential participants would have caused
problems, and time and cost constraints would have proved prohibitive. Stratified and
cluster sampling methods were used together; first, the population was stratified as
city and resort hotels, and then the cities where the hotels are located were taken as
clusters. In the process of clustering the cities, we paid special attention to choosing
hotels from cities with a relatively greater number of five-star hotels in both strata (i.e.
city and resort). Hotels from four cities were chosen: the hotels in Antalya and Muğla
were chosen both because they are among the most active resort towns in terms of
tourism activities and because they are among the cities with the largest number of
five-star hotels. The other two cities, Ankara and Istanbul, were chosen because they
are among the most important cities in Turkey in terms of city hotel establishments.
All these factors were considered and the study was conducted primarily on employees
working in five-star hotels in these cities and also on the employees working in hotels
run in other cities as much as possible. One thousand, one hundred and seventeen out
of 1175 questionnaires were received back from resort hotels, whereas 764 out of 825
questionnaires were received back from city hotels. From all the questionnaires
distributed, only 1,854 questionnaires – 1,098 from resort hotels and 756 from city
hotels – were included in the analysis. The remaining questionnaires were excluded
for reasons such as incomplete data and coding and so on.
In order to find out the managerial empowerment activities (behavioral
empowerment) the empowerment scale developed by Niehoff et al. (2001) was used.
In addition, a questionnaire with 27 statements was formed, referring to the
empowerment scales used in the studies in the literature (Cacioppe, 1998; Dobbs, 1993;
Kanter, 1993; King and Ehrhard, 1996; Laschinger et al., 2004; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996)
and also referring to the information provided in the related literature. The
questionnaire included statements about the distribution of information and resources, Employee job
authority and responsibility, participation, reliability and employee support, job satisfaction
enrichment, motivation, communication, teamwork, training, learning, rewarding and
feedback. The construct validity of the questionnaire has been tested because the
questionnaire is made up of the statements used in other studies in the literature. For
that reason, to identify the employees’ perceptions of psychological empowerment,
Spreitzer’s (1995, 1996), “psychological empowerment perception” inventory was used. 789
The inventory for psychological empowerment has 12 statements, consisting of three
statements for each dimension and covering titles such as value, sufficiency, choice-
free will and influence. The questionnaires were designed in accordance with five-point
Likert scales.
The scale used to measure the job satisfaction levels of the employees is the
employee job satisfaction scale developed by Weiss et al. (1967), with 20 dimensions
measuring job satisfaction. The scale, known as the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ), includes more comprehensive dimensions in comparison with
other job satisfaction scales (Blake et al., 2004; Hancer and George, 2003; Herrera and
Lim, 2003; Irving et al., 1997; Nysted et al., 1999). The scale was designed in a way to
identify the extent to which the employees are satisfied with the present conditions of
the hotel on a five-point Likert scale.
The correlation between the variables in the study was examined through Bartlett’s
test and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) adequacy test. Within this frame, the p value of
Bartlett’s test is 0.002 (p , 0:05). Moreover, the KMO value, an indicator of the sample
adequacy, is calculated to be 0.83. These values show that the scales employed in the
study are appropriate for the factor analysis. The factor analysis of the job satisfaction
scale explains 73.18 percent of the total variance. The two factors (dimensions) related
to empowerment, in which 39 statements are included, explain the 79.32 percent of the
total variance. The variance of the dimension of behavioral empowerment has the
highest explanatory percentage with 47.65 percent, while it is 31.67 percent for
psychological empowerment. The factor loadings of the statements for behavioral
empowerment used in other studies in the literature are above the critical level of 0.40
(Harman, 1967; Ural and Kılıç, 2006) and range from 0.585 to 0.714. The Cronbach’ a
coefficients are 0.95, 0.86, and 0.91 the for behavioral empowerment scale,
psychological empowerment scale and job satisfaction scale, respectively.

Results
Of 1,854 employees, 59.2 percent were male and 40.8% were female. Looking at their
educational background, 10.8 percent graduated from secondary school, 43.7 percent
graduated from high school, 24.9 percent have an associate degree, 18.8 percent have
an undergraduate degree and 1.8 percent have a graduate degree. Regarding the
duration of their employment in the tourism sector, 20.2 percent of the employees had
been employed in the tourism sector for two or fewer years, 37.4 percent for 3-5 years,
26.2 percent for 6-8 years, 12.1 percent for 9-11 years, and 4.4 percent for 12 years
and/or more.
In the study, the percentage-frequency and arithmetic mean of the perceptions of the
employees were estimated and interpreted for each statement in the questionnaire
regarding their behavioral and psychological empowerment perceptions and job
satisfaction levels, which paved the way for a detailed analysis for each statement in
IJCHM the scales under consideration. “To be able to communicate with the managers anytime
23,6 they want”, “To be assured that special attention is paid to providing the necessary
physical resources”, “To be encouraged in teamwork and to be supported by the
manager in problem solving processes” are among the points the employees reported
as having the lowest level. It was found that the topics that the respondents rated as
negative generally centered on being assigned responsibility and autonomy. When
790 statements regarding the behavioral dimension of empowerment are considered, it can
be said that these practices generally have their roots in management policy on the part
of the manager.
On the other hand, the point with the lowest score regarding employees’ perceptions
of the psychological empowerment was that their decisions on the task they undertake
were not taken seriously; this is likely to stem from managerial and administrative
policies and decisions. When we consider that empowerment is not all about providing
employees with opportunities but also about supporting employees to internalize and
consider empowerment in all dimensions, we can clearly conclude that managers
should undertake activities to improve and increase the perception levels of the
employees. In this respect, it can be suggested that managers should attach more
importance and priority to in-service training and feedback, particularly. Also, 78.4
percent of respondents stated that they were not content with their salary.
It was also found that employees are not content with some other issues, such as the
freedom to take initiative for the tasks they undertake, the chance to work individually
(on their own), to assign tasks to co-workers, the firm’s policy and its implementation,
promotion opportunities and the opportunity to be able to undertake different tasks.
These results reveal that employees are not satisfied with the policies of the
establishment due to the fact that they do not have enough say in decision making
processes and they are not allowed to work individually. Employees stated that they
are deprived of the opportunity to undertake different tasks, and this might lead to the
possibility that the job becomes monotonous and causes boredom and dissatisfaction
for employees. All of this highlights that managers should enforce implementations
such as job enrichment and/or rotation, which are also a significant part of
empowerment.
The correlation between the job satisfaction levels of the employees and their
perceptions of behavioral empowerment, psychological empowerment and overall
perceptions of empowerment was found through simple correlation analysis, and then
the Pearson correlation coefficient between each variable was estimated. In addition to
the simple correlation analysis between job satisfaction and empowerment and its sub
dimensions, the determination coefficient (R 2) was found in order to estimate the
change in dependent variable ( job satisfaction) by independent variables
(psychological and behavioral empowerment). Moreover, simple regression was
applied in order to analyze the relation between empowerment and job satisfaction, and
between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. On the other hand, in order
to analyze the relation between general empowerment (behavioral and psychological)
and job satisfaction, multiple linear regression was applied. Here, behavioral
empowerment and psychological empowerment were taken as independent variables
and the effect of these variables on the dependent variable was investigated. Whether
the linear regression models in the study were significant or not was tested through a
variance analysis. The significance of regression models, whether it as a whole or
based on coefficients, indicates that the correlation between the variables can be Employee job
explained by “linear regression models”. The comparisons in the analyses of satisfaction
correlation and regression were not performed in terms of each statement, but were
performed through the averages of all the statements (20 for job satisfaction, 27 for
behavioral empowerment, and 12 for psychological empowerment in the scale used.
Table I reports the results of the correlation analysis between employee
empowerment and employee job satisfaction. In this analysis, job satisfaction was 791
taken as the dependent variable and empowerment and its sub-dimensions
(behavioral-psychological) as independent variables.
According to the findings in Table I, a significant correlation at 0.001 significance
level was found between empowerment and its sub dimensions and job satisfaction
levels. In other words, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between job satisfaction
and empowerment and its sub dimensions is statistically significant (p , 0:001). Also,
it can be observed from Table I that there is a positive, moderate level (r ¼ 0:44) of
correlation between employee job satisfaction and psychological empowerment,
whereas there is a positive high level of correlation (0:60 , r , 0:80) between
employee job satisfaction and empowerment in general (r ¼ 0.76) and behavioral
empowerment (r ¼ 0.72). When the determination coefficients (R 2) in Table I are
analyzed, it can be seen that 19 percent of the total variance in job satisfaction results
from psychological empowerment and 52 percent results from behavioral
empowerment. The determination coefficient estimated for empowerment in general
was found to be 0.570. It can be said, in other words, 57% of the total variance in job
satisfaction stems from empowerment in general.
These coefficients also affected the correlation coefficients between the dependent
variable (i.e. job satisfaction) and the independent variables (i.e. empowerment and its
sub-dimensions). In Table I, the highest level of correlation between employee job
satisfaction and empowerment, along with its sub dimensions were found to be
between job satisfaction and empowerment in general (r ¼ 0:75 and
p ¼ 0:000 , 0:001) and it is followed by the correlation between job satisfaction and
behavioral empowerment (r ¼ 0:72). The correlation between job satisfaction and
psychological empowerment (r ¼ 0:44), on the other hand, is lower when compared to
the above-mentioned variables (empowerment in general and behavioral
empowerment), as can also be seen in Table I.
According to the results, we can conclude that the most significant factor in
employee empowerment and job satisfaction is empowerment in general, consisting of

Pearson correlation Determination

Variables coefficient Job satisfaction coefficient (R 2)

Behavioral empowerment r 0.720 0.519

p 0.000 * * * Table I.
Psychological empowerment r 0.438 0.192 The correlation matrices
p 0.000 * * * regarding the correlation
Empowerment in general r 0.755 0.570 between job satisfaction
p 0.000 * * * and empowerment and its
sub-dimensions
Note: * * *p , 0:001 (n ¼ 1; 854)
IJCHM both the behavioral and psychological dimensions of empowerment. The results can be
23,6 interpreted as follows: both behavioral and psychological empowerment
implementations in an establishment enhance employee job satisfaction, and when
the empowerment activities are performed in such a way as to cover both dimensions
of empowerment (behavioral and psychological), the increase in employee job
satisfaction becomes more remarkable. However, it should be noted that the correlation
792 analysis employed in the study does not allow us to conduct a cause-effect analysis. It
can only provide some insights into how the variables change, and in what direction
they change. The results of the simple regression analysis are reported in Tables II and
III.
The results suggest that the regression models are significant, and the
determination coefficients are R 2 ¼ 0:519 and R 2 ¼ 0:192, respectively. These
results indicate that behavioral empowerment has more predictive power in explaining
job satisfaction more than psychological empowerment. The results reported in
Table IV support the findings in Tables II and III.
According to the findings in Table IV, the multiple linear regression analysis
between the employees’ perception levels of employee job satisfaction and behavioral
and psychological empowerment was found to be significant (F ¼ 1; 026:44;
p , 0:001), which indicates that at least one regression coefficient, obtained from
the multiple linear regression model, is different from 0, which is a clear sign of the fact
Table II.
Simple linear regression
Independent variables bj S(bj) t p R2 Significance
analysis regarding the
correlation between job Constant 0.995 0.059 16.995 0.000 * * * 0.519 F ¼ 1; 994:513
satisfaction and Behavioral empowerment 0.690 0.015 44.660 0.000 * * * p ¼ 0:000
behavioral empowerment
(n ¼ 1; 854) Notes: Job satisfaction ¼ 0:995 þ 0:690 (behavioral empowerment); * * *p , 0:001

Table III.
The simple linear
regression analysis
Independent variables bj S(bj) t p R2 Significance
regarding the correlation
between job satisfaction Constant 1.818 0.085 21.059 0.000 * * * 0.192 F ¼ 439:724
and psychological Psychological empowerment 0.450 0.021 20.970 0.000 * * * p ¼ 0:000
empowerment
(n ¼ 1; 854) Notes: Job satisfaction ¼ 1:818 þ 0:450 (psychological empowerment); * * *p , 0:001

Table IV.
The multiple linear
Independent variables bj S(bj) t p R2 Significance
regression analysis
regarding the correlation Constant 0.778 0.071 10.977 0.000 * * * 0.526 F ¼ 1; 026:439
between job satisfaction Behavioral empowerment 0.642 0.018 36.108 0.000 * * * p ¼ 0:000
and behavioral and Psychological empowerment 0.102 0.019 5.350 0.000 * * *
psychological
empowerment Notes: Job satisfaction ¼ 0:778 þ 0:642 (behavioral empowermentÞ þ 0:102 (psychological
(n ¼ 1; 854) empowerment); * * *p , 0:001
that there is a correlation between the variables. Therefore, these results indicate that Employee job
there is a correlation between the dependent variable (i.e. employee job satisfaction) satisfaction
and the independent variables (i.e. behavioral and psychological empowerment). When
the multiple determination coefficient (R 2 ¼ 0:526), reported in Table IV, is considered,
it can be concluded that 52.6 percent of the total variance in job satisfaction stems from
the independent variables (behavioral empowerment and psychological
empowerment). In other words, the effect of the independent variables (i.e. 793
behavioral empowerment and psychological empowerment) on the dependent
variable (i.e. job satisfaction) is 52.6 percent.
Also, it can be seen from Figure 1 that empowerment as a whole (psychological and
behavioral) has a greater effect on employee job satisfaction. As a matter of fact, this
can be suggested as the verification of what we have been emphasizing throughout the
study, in contrast to previous studies. Taking empowerment as a whole (psychological
and behavioral) and enforcing activities and implementations within this framework is
thought to have a greater effect on job satisfaction.

Conclusion and implications

In this study, which aimed to determine the effect of employee empowerment on job
satisfaction of employees, the majority of the employees surveyed reported that they
were not satisfied with the salary they received from hotel businesses. Similarly, there
are many other studies (Bilgiç, 1998; Oshagbemi, 2000; Spector, 1997; Tepeci and
Bartlett, 2002) to arrive at the conclusion that employees working in the tourism sector
are not satisfied with their salaries. It is a clear fact that employee dissatisfaction is
closely related to the payment policies of the establishment. Still, in a service industry,
hotels should make enough efforts to ensure alternating (overwork payment,
rewarding etc.) and fair payment systems are in place, since job satisfaction is not all
about providing feasible tasks, physical conditions and social facilities, but is also
directly related to factors enabling employees to lead a financially reasonable and
comfortable life.
Another result arising from the study is that job enrichment and/or rotation
practices, which are important components of empowerment, should be given more
importance by enterprises. Indeed, these practices as an important component of
empowerment will contribute to the morale and motivation of employees and their job
satisfaction and organizational devotion and will be reflected positively. Similarly, in

Figure 1.
Findings regarding the
research hypotheses
IJCHM related studies (Caudron, 1995; Janssen et al., 1997; Kim, 2002; Sigler and Pearson, 2000;
23,6 Spreitzer and Mishra, 2002), it was concluded that an empowered employee would have
a higher level of motivation and organizational commitment as well as job satisfaction.
This study concludes that behavioral and psychological empowerment has a
positive effect on the job satisfaction levels of employees. As a result of the correlation
analyses conducted to identify the level of this effect, a high positive correlation
794 (r ¼ 0:720) was found between behavioral empowerment and job satisfaction. On the
other hand, the correlation level between psychological empowerment and job
satisfaction (0.438) was found to be average. The correlation level between job
satisfaction and empowerment as a whole was found to have a high (r ¼ 0:755)
positive correlation, similar to the result of the analysis of behavioral empowerment.
The correlation level between the variables is also supported by the results of the
simple and multiple linear regression analyses for the correlation analyses between
empowerment and job satisfaction.
Previous studies about this subject generally focused on either correlating
behavioral dimension of empowerment and job satisfaction (Babin and Boles, 1996;
Laschinger et al., 1997; Yoon et al., 2001) or correlating psychological dimension of
empowerment with job satisfaction (Dewettinck and Van Ameijde, 2007; Kuo et al.,
2007; Riggs and Knight, 1994; Spreitzer et al., 1997), rather than analyzing the two
dimensions of empowerment (behavioral and psychological) jointly. The results of this
study showed that when both dimensions of empowerment are taken as a whole, the
effect level of empowerment on employee job satisfaction yields a higher rate, which
differentiates this study from the other studies that have been conducted on the
subject. Moreover, there is a need for studies conducted in a way that involves both the
behavioral and psychological dimensions of empowerment, because studies conducted
within this framework will provide a more comprehensive source in terms of putting
the related activities into practice. In addition, when we consider the fact that there are
a limited number of studies comprising both dimensions of empowerment, it is obvious
that studies within this framework will contribute greatly to the related literature and
to enterprises as well, and will enable establishments to be more conscious about
empowerment implementations and to have a stronger and sounder grounding for
empowerment implementations. In this respect, it can also be said that this study will
contribute to the literature.
To meet the demands of customers as well as they want and as fast as their demand,
is one of the criteria of quality service and the provision of this quality service which is
no doubt closely and directly related to certain factors such as the way the service is
provided by the employee providing the service, his/her speed, working environment,
knowledge, competence and skills, authority in terms of problem solving and so on.
Invigorating the conditions in this environment so as to live up to the expectations of
employees as well will affect employee job satisfaction positively and will have
positive outcomes in terms of customer satisfaction due to the quality of the services
provided. Activating implementations intended for employee empowerment will
considerably contribute to the establishments by providing competitive advantages
especially in sectors where employees and employers face a fierce competition.
Quick-mindedness, problem-solving skills and competence in human relations are very
important for employees working in the tourism sector, which requires great physical
and mental exertion. Therefore, ensuring that employees possess these skills and
competences, which have a great importance for empowerment, and to working on any Employee job
possible deficiencies (by encouraging participation in in-service training and satisfaction
professional development programs, etc.) will be among the factors affecting the
quality of the services provided. In addition to these points, managers should discuss
with employees the content and goals of the empowerment activities that are going to
be practiced in the department they are responsible for, and they should support and
help employees become accustomed to these activities. This is necessary because a 795
detailed and thorough analysis of employees’ competences and deficiencies by their
managers would provide significant ease and benefits in terms of obtaining the desired
outcomes from these empowerment activities.
The willingness of both employees and managers is one of the indispensable factors
for managers. When empowered, employees will have the advantage of providing
unsatisfied customers with various alternatives by utilizing their creativity and
personal skills in quick decision making to respond to the customer as fast as possible
(Fisher, 1989). Otherwise, all the opportunities and facilities will not function properly
and this would result in a lack of integration and adaptation on the part of employees.
Koch and Godden (1997), who significantly criticized and reviewed employee
empowerment issues, suggested that in case of the reluctance of the parties involved in
the empowerment process, employee empowerment practices would not work as
planned and all the efforts towards empowerment would be nothing but a waste of
time, money and resources. By considering this, it is essential that managers should
design the opportunities/facilities to be provided in accordance with the needs and
competences of their employees and should ensure that all employees are actively
involved in all these processes. This would provide a lot of benefit in the long run for
establishments to consider the opinions and expectations of employees regarding
implementation. To be satisfied with the opportunities empowerment will offer and to
see that their opinions are considered in the decision making processes will certainly
improve the level of employees’ job satisfaction (Bowen and Lawler, 1992; Carless,
2004; Chow et al., 2005; Erstad, 1997; Janssen et al., 1997; Seibert et al., 2004;) and
organizational commitment (Gunlu et al., 2010; Henkin and Marchiori, 2003; Spreitzer
and Mishra, 2002).
The effect of empowerment on the behavior and attitudes clearly signifies the
importance of the implementation of this notion in hotel establishments. As a result, it
can be suggested that hotel managers should thoroughly analyze the increase caused
by empowerment, as suggested in previous studies, in the organizational commitment
levels of employees (Henkin and Marchiori, 2003; Kim, 2002; Sigler and Pearson, 2000;
Spreitzer and Mishra, 2002;), in their motivation (Caudron, 1995; Dewettinck and Van
Ameijde, 2007; Janssen et al., 1997), in their performance (Locke, 1991; Sigler and
Pearson, 2000), and in customer satisfaction (Bowen and Lawler, 1992; Chebat and
Kollias, 2000). They should also value that empowerment implementations lead to an
increase in employee job satisfaction, as revealed by the results of this study, and they
should enforce such implementations for the benefit of their establishments. Also, a
high rate of turnover in the hospitality sector is among the topics emphasized in
previous studies (Bonn and Forbringer, 1992; Iverson and Deery, 1997; Moncarz et al.,
2009). In particular, considering the positive effect of job satisfaction on the reduction
of turnover (Ongori, 2007; Porter et al., 1974; Tütüncü, 2003), empowerment activities
are becoming more important. Both related studies (Kuo et al., 2007; Sahin, 2007; Wang
IJCHM and Lee, 2009; Yoon et al., 2001) and the results of this survey shows employee
23,6 empowerment’s positive contribution to improving the job satisfaction of employees.
From this situation, it can be said that employee empowerment can be used indirectly
to reduce employee turnover.
The nature of service delivery necessitates on-the-spot solutions and
responsiveness. Empowered employees will be able to use individual skills and
796 initiative to offer on-the-spot solutions and responsiveness, which are thought to
enhance service quality. Service quality is definitely concerned with the way services
are delivered, job environment, and authority of the employees over specific issues.
Empowering the above-mentioned factors in line with the expectations of the
employees will be reflected in customer satisfaction as well as job satisfaction.
Since hotel establishments are highly service-oriented, there is face-to-face
interaction and hence complaints are made to employees delivering services. This
could lead to stress, unease and conflict from the perspective of employees. At this
point, the attitude that managers take towards employees is of great importance in
terms of motivation and job satisfaction. In particular, customer contact service
employees play a boundary-spanning role in the hospitality industry where they
interact with many individuals from inside (fellow employees and managers) and
outside (guests) their organizations. Since excellent customer service requires
employees to be empowered to make many service decisions independently and on the
spot, reduced employee desire for empowerment does not favor the interests of
hospitality organizations. Therefore, it is important to find strategies that can help to
improve employees’ desire for empowerment (Gill et al., 2010).
Employee empowerment has a greater importance, especially in the service sector,
where the production and provision of the service takes place in the presence of
customers and where customer satisfaction is closely related to the quality and
presentation of the service. In the service sector, customers understandably desire that
their needs and wants are met as quickly as possible. When empowered, the employee
will have the advantage of providing the unsatisfied customer with various
alternatives by utilizing his/her creativity and personal skills in quick decision-making
to respond to customers as fast as possible (Avcı and Karatepe, 2000).
The same thing is valid for tourism establishments, since it may lead to wasted time
and, more importantly, customer dissatisfaction when the employee has to wait for the
manager to solve a problem. When an employee happens to make statements such as
“I’m sorry but it’s not me who set this rule”, “It’s not my fault” or “I have to consult my
manager but I can’t find him”, this is a clear sign regarding the management policies of
the establishment. However, if employees are given the power to feel that it is their own
business, they will act more responsibly and will do their job more willingly, which will
positively affect the job satisfaction level of the employee. The results of this study
fully support the above-mentioned views.

Limitations and research avenues

Although this study was conducted in hotel establishments, we can suggest that all
establishments, regardless of their field, will undoubtedly obtain more efficient
outcomes by considering both the behavioral and psychological dimensions of
empowerment, rather than considering empowerment as a single entity. The outcome
of this study is supported by the fact that studies conducted regarding this subject
have generally focused on the correlation between one single dimension of Employee job
empowerment and employee behavior, and that these studies have generally satisfaction
suggested that the approach/dimension employed in the study will positively affect
employee job behavior.
This study suggests that both dimensions of empowerment (behavioral and
psychological) and the activation of practices in accordance with this will have a
greater effect on employee job satisfaction level, especially in hotel establishments. In 797
this respect, we can conclude that this study will contribute to the related literature and
to the way employee empowerment activities are practiced in establishments, when
managers and researchers intending to conduct research into the subject consider both
dimensions of empowerment rather than handling them singly and separately. Such an
approach will provide benefits in terms of having a stronger and sounder grounding
for both managers and the related literature.

References
Appelbaum, S.H., Hebert, D. and Leroux, S. (1999), “Empowerment: power, culture and
leadership – a strategy or fad for the millennium?”, Journal of Workplace Learning:
Employee Counseling Today, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 235-9.
Arvey, R.D., Bouchard, T.J., Segal, N.L. and Abraham, L.M. (1989), “Job satisfaction:
environmental and genetic components”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 187-92.
Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (2006), “Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: antecedents, the
mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 59, pp. 793-801.
Avcı, T. and Karatepe, O.M. (2000), “İşletmenin sınır biriminde çalışan işgörenlerin tatmini:
ampirik bir değerlendirme”, 8. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildirileri,
İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul, pp. 543-70.
Babin, B.J. and Boles, J.S. (1996), “The effect of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor
support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Baker, C.M., McDaniel, M., Fredrickson, K.C. and Gallegos, E.C. (2007), “Empowerment among
Latina nurses in Mexico, New York and Indiana”, International Nursing Review, Vol. 54
No. 2, pp. 124-9.
Baruch, Y. (1998), “Empowerment models in organizations”, Career Development International,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 82-7.
Bilgiç, R. (1998), “The relationship between job satisfaction and personal characteristics of
Turkish workers”, Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary & Applied, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 549-57.
Blake, S.S., Kester, L. and Stoller, J. (2004), “Respiratory therapists’ attitudes about participative
decision making: relationship between managerial decision-making style and job
satisfaction”, Respiratory Care, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 917-25.
Bolat, T. (2003), “Personeli güçlendirme: davranışsal ve bilişsel boyutta incelenmesi ve yönetim
kavramlarıyla karşılaştırılması”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi
Dergisi, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4, pp. 199-219.
Bonn, M.A. and Forbringer, L.R. (1992), “Reducing turnover in the hospitality industry:
an overview of recruitment, selection and retention”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 47-63.
IJCHM Bowen, D. and Lawler, E.E. (1992), “The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how, and
when”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 31-9.
23,6
Cacioppe, R. (1998), “Structured empowerment: an award-winning program at the Burswood
Resort Hotel”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 3-11.
Carless, S.A. (2004), “Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between
psychological climate and job satisfaction?”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18
798 No. 4, pp. 405-25.
Caudron, S. (1995), “Create an empowering environment”, Personal Journal, Vol. 74, pp. 28-36.
Chang, L. and Liu, C. (2008), “Employee empowerment, innovative behavior and job productivity
of public health nurses: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey”, International Journal of
Nursing Studies, Vol. 45 No. 10, pp. 1442-8.
Chebat, J.C. and Kollias, P. (2000), “The impact of empowerment on customer-contact employees’
role in service organizations”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 66-82.
Chow, I.H., Wing-Chun, L.T., Sha, Z. and Hong, J. (2005), “The impact of developmental
experience, empowerment, and organizational support on catering service staff
performance”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 478-95.
Çöl, G. (2008), “Algılanan güçlendirmenin işgören performansı üzerindeki etkileri”, Doğuş
Üniversitesi Dergisi, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-82.
Corsun, D.L. and Enz, C.A. (1999), “Predicting psychological empowerment among service
workers: the effect of support-based relationships”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 205-24.
Cunningham, I., Hyman, J. and Baldry, C. (1996), “Empowerment: the power to do what?”,
Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 143-54.
Dewettinck, K. and Van Ameijde, M. (2007), “Linking leadership empowerment behavior to
employee attitudes and behavioral intentions: testing the mediating role of psychological
empowerment”, working paper, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Ghent.
Dobbs, J.H. (1993), “The empowerment environment”, Training & Development, Vol. 47 No. 2,
pp. 55-7.
Erstad, M. (1997), “Empowerment and organizational change”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 9 No. 7, pp. 325-33.
Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement,
and Their Correlates, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Ezzedeen, S.R. (2003), “Research note on job satisfaction”, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA.
Fisher, S. (1989), “Stress, control, worry prescriptions and the implications for health at work:
a psychological model”, in Sauter, S.L., Hurrell, J.J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Job Control and
Worker Health, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 205-36.
Flores, P. and Rodrı́guez, A.J. (2008), “Personal skills, job satisfaction, and productivity in
members of high performance teams”, College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 81-6.
Gill, A., Fitzgerald, S., Bhutani, S. and Mand, H. (2010), “The relationship between
transformational leadership and employee desire for empowerment”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 263-73.
Griffin, M.L. (2001), “Job satisfaction among detention officers: assessing the relative Employee job
contribution of organizational climate variables”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29,
pp. 219-32. satisfaction
Gu, Z. and Siu, R.C.S. (2009), “Drivers of job satisfaction as related to work performance in Macao
casino hotels”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 561-78.
Gunlu, E., Aksarayli, M. and Sahin, N. (2010), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment of 799
hotel managers in Turkey”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 693-717.
Hales, C. and Klidas, A. (1998), “Empowerment in five-star hotels: choice, voice or rhetoric?”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 88-95.
Han, S.-S., Moon, S.J. and Yun, E.K. (2009), “Empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment: comparison of permanent and temporary nurses in Korea”, Applied Nursing
Research, Vol. 22, pp. 15-20.
Hancer, M. and George, T. (2003), “Job satisfaction of restaurant employees: an empirical
investigation using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 85-100.
Hardy, C. and O’Sullivan, S.L. (1998), “The power behind empowerment: implications for
research and practice”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 451-83.
Harman, H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, London.
He, P., Murrmann, S.K. and Perdue, R.R. (2010), “An investigation of the relationships among
employee empowerment, employee-perceived service quality, and employee job
satisfaction in a US hospitality organization”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 36-50.
Hechanova, M., Alampay, R. and Franco, E. (2006), “Psychological empowerment, job
satisfaction and performance among Filipino service workers”, Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, No. 9, pp. 72-8.
Henkin, A.B. and Marchiori, D.M. (2003), “Empowerment and organizational commitment of
chiropractic faculty”, Journal of Manipulative and Psychological Therapeutics, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 275-81.
Herrera, R. and Lim, J.Y. (2003), “Job satisfaction among athletic trainers in NCAA Division IAA
institutions”, The Sport Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, available at: www.thesportjournal.org/
2003Journal/Vol6-No1/satisfaction.asp (accessed March 24, 2006).
Honold, L. (1997), “A review of the literature on employee empowerment”, Empowerment in
Organizations, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 202-12.
Houston, A.M. and Cowley, S. (2002), “An empowerment approach to needs assessment in health
visiting practice”, Journal of Clinical Nursing, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 640-50.
Irving, P.G., Coleman, D.F. and Cooper, C.L. (1997), “Further assessment of a three-component
model of occupational commitment: generalizability and differences across occupations”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 444-52.
Iverson, R.D. and Deery, M. (1997), “Turnover culture in the hospitality industry”, Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 71-82.
Janssen, O., Schoonebeek, G. and Looy, V.B. (1997), “Cognitions of empowerment: the link
between participative management and employees’ innovative behavior”, Gedrad en
Organisatie, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 175-94.
Kanter, R.M. (1993), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
IJCHM Kim, S. (2002), “Participative management and job satisfaction: lessons for management
leadership”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 231-41.
23,6
King, A.S. and Ehrhard, B.J. (1996), “Empowering the workplace: a commitment cohesion
exercise”, Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 139-50.
Koch, R. and Godden, I. (1997), “Why empowerment is unworkable?”, Across the Board, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 11-12.
800 Kuo, H.T., Yin, T.J. and Li, I.C. (2007), “Relationship between organizational empowerment and
job satisfaction perceived by nursing assistants at long-term care facilities”, Journal of
Clinical Nursing, No. 10, pp. 1-9.
Kuşluvan, Z. and Kuşluvan, S. (2005), “Otel işletmelerinde iş ve işletme ile ilgili faktörlerin
işgören tatmini üzerindeki görece etkisi: Nevşehir örneği”, Anatolia: Turizm Arastırmaları
Dergisi, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-203.
Laschinger, H.K.S., Sabiston, J.A. and Kutzscher, L. (1997), “Empowerment and staff nurse
decision involvement in nursing work environments: testing Kanter’s theory of structural
power in organizations”, Research in Nursing and Health, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 341-52.
Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. (2001), “Impact of structural and
psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: expanding Kanter’s
model”, Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 260-72.
Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J.E., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. (2004), “A longitudinal analysis of the
impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 527-45.
Lashley, C. (1996), “Research issues for employee empowerment in hospitality organizations”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 333-46.
Lashley, C. and McGoldrick, J. (1994), “The limits of empowerment a critical assessment of
human resource strategy for hospitality operations”, Empowerment in Organizations,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 25-38.
Lee, M. and Koh, J. (2001), “Is empowerment really a new concept?”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 684-95.
Locke, E.A. (1991), “The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 288-99.
McCain, S.C., Tsai, H. and Bellino, N. (2010), “Organizational justice, employees’ ethical behavior,
and job satisfaction in the casino industry”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 992-1009.
Moncarz, E., Zhao, J. and Kay, C. (2009), “An exploratory study of US lodging properties’
organizational practices on employee turnover and retention”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 437-58.
Niehoff, B.P., Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G. and Fuller, J. (2001), “The influence of empowerment
and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 93-113.
Nysted, L., Sjoberg, A. and Hagglund, G. (1999), “Discriminant validation of measures of
organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction among Swedish army
officers”, Journal of Psychology, No. 40, pp. 49-55.
Ongori, H. (2007), “A review of the literature on employee turnover”, African Journal of Business
Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 49-54.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000), “Is length of service related to the level of job satisfaction?”, International
Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 205-17.
Peccei, R. and Rosenthal, P. (2001), “Delivering customer-oriented behavior through Employee job
empowerment: an empirical test of HRM assumptions”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 831-58. satisfaction
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974), “Organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.
Psoinos, A., Kern, T. and Smithson, S. (2000), “An exploratory study of information systems in 801
support of employee empowerment”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 211-30.
Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1997), “The road to empowerment: seven questions every leader
should consider”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 37-49.
Randolph, W.A. and Sahkin, M. (2002), “Can organizational empowerment work in multinational
settings?”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 102-15.
Riggs, M.L. and Knight, P.A. (1994), “The impact of perceived group success-failure on
motivational beliefs and attitudes: a causal model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79
No. 5, pp. 755-66.
Ryu, K., Han, H. and Jang, S. (2010), “Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 416-32.
Sağlam, A.G. (2003), İşletmelerde Güven ve Personel Güçlendirme İlişkisi: Bankacılık Sektöründe
Bir Araştırma, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosoyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Sahin, N. (2007), Personel Güçlendirmenin İş Tatmini ve Örgütsel Bağlılık Üzerine Etkisi: Dört ve
Beş Yıldızlı Otel İşletmelerinde Bir Araştırma, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü, İzmir.
Seibert, S.E., Silver, S.R. and Randolph, W.A. (2004), “Taking empowerment to the next level:
a multiple-level model of empowerment, performance and satisfaction”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 332-49.
Siegall, M. and Gardner, S. (2000), “Contextual factors of psychological empowerment”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 703-23.
Sigler, T.H. and Pearson, C.M. (2000), “Creating an empowering culture: examining the
relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment”, Journal of
Quality Management, Vol. 5, pp. 27-52.
Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and Consequences, Sage
Publications, London.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement
and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-65.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 483-504.
Spreitzer, G.M. and Mishra, A.K. (2002), “To stay or to go? Voluntary survivor turnover
following on organizational downsizing”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, No. 23,
pp. 707-29.
Spreitzer, G.M., Kızılos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997), “A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction and strain”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 679-704.
Tepeci, M. and Bartlett, A.L.B. (2002), “The hospitality industry culture profile: a measure of
individual values, organizational culture and person organization fit as predictors of job
IJCHM satisfaction and behavioral intentions”, The International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 151-71.
23,6 Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.S. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-81.
Tütüncü, Ö. (2003), “Konaklama işletmelerinde insan kaynakları kapsamında iş gücü devir
hızının analizi ve Muğla bölgesi örneği”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
802 Dergisi, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 146-69.
Ural, A. and Kılıç, İ. (2006), Bilimsel Araştırma Süreci ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi, Detay Yayıncılık,
Ankara.
Wang, G. and Lee, P.D. (2009), “Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: an analysis of
interactive effects”, Group Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 271-96.
Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W. and Lofquist, L.H. (1967), Manual for the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire, University of Minnesota Work Adjustment Project Industrial
Relations Center, Minneapolis, MN.
Wilkinson, A. (1998), “Empowerment: theory and practice”, Personal Review, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 40-56.
Yoon, M.H., Beatty, S.E. and Suh, V. (2001), “The effect of work climate on critical employee and
customer outcomes: an employee-level analysis”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 500-21.

About the authors

Elbeyi Pelit (PhD) is Assistant Professor at the School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Afyon
Kocatepe University, Turkey. His research interests include management and organization in
business, human resource management, tourism and hotel management, business ethics and
tourism education.
Yüksel Özürk (PhD) is a Professor in the Faculty of Tourism, Gazi University, Turkey. His
research interests include tourism marketing, public relations and human resources
management. Yüksel Özürk is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Yalçın Arslantürk (PhD) is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Commerce and Tourism Education,
Gazi University, Turkey (e-mail , [email protected] . ). His research interests include
tourism, tourism education, sustainable tourism, human resources management and language.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints