Human Resource Development International Vol. 13, No.

4, September 2010, 425441

Psychological empowerment and organizational commitment: the moderating eect of organizational learning culture
Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Jooa* and Ji Hyun Shimb
a College of Business, Winona State University, USA; bDepartment of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, USA

(Received 11 December 2009; nal version received 19 March 2010) This paper examines the inuence of psychological empowerment on organizational commitment and the moderating eect of organizational learning culture on the relationship. The results suggest that psychological empowerment, organizational learning culture, and demographic variables had a signicant impact on organizational commitment for employees in the public sector of Korea. Employees showed higher organizational commitment when they perceived high psychological empowerment and a high organizational learning culture. In addition, the moderating eect of organizational learning culture on the relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational commitment was found to be signicant. Among the demographic variables, only educational level turned out to be signicant. Finally, implications, limitations and research recommendations are discussed. Keywords: psychological organizational learning empowerment; organizational commitment;

Today, many rms try to become employers of choice, which refers to organizations that outperform their competition by attracting, developing, and retaining people with business-required talent (Joo and McLean 2006). A good workplace is believed to produce higher quality products and services, support more innovation, have the ability to attract more talented people, experience less resistance to change and reduce turnover costs, all of which translate directly into a better bottom line (Levering 1998). For an organization to have a sustained competitive advantage in the product and labor market, highly committed employees are required. Organizational commitment refers to an individuals feelings about an organization as a whole. It is the psychological bond that an employee has with an organization (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1982). The impact of organizational commitment on individual performance and organizational eectiveness has drawn much attention from researchers (Allen and Meyer 1996; Beck and Wilson 2000; Mowday 1998). Thus, what predicts organizational commitment has been an important research concern in the eld of human resource development (HRD). Drucker (1988) long ago pointed to the growth of the knowledge economy and the importance of knowledge workers. Jobs not only in service and

*Corresponding author. Email: bjoo@winona.edu

ISSN 1367-8868 print/ISSN 1469-8374 online 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2010.501963 http://www.informaworld.com

426

B.-K. (Brian) Joo and J.H. Shim

knowledge work, but also in manufacturing are becoming more knowledgeoriented, highlighting the importance of the cognitive characteristics of work (Parker, Wall, and Cordery 2001). Knowledge workers are dened as high-level employees who apply theoretical and analytical knowledge acquired through formal education to developing new products or services (Drucker 1999). A metaanalysis of the job design literature concluded that employees working on complex jobs are more satised and internally motivated than employees working on jobs that are relatively simple (Fried and Ferris 1987). That is, jobs designed to be complex and demanding (i.e. high on autonomy and complexity) are expected to foster higher levels of intrinsic motivation than relatively simple, routine jobs (Hackman and Oldham 1980; Oldham and Cummings 1996). The problem is, however, that it is dicult for supervisors to monitor the employees with complex and challenging jobs (Joo 2007). Moreover, employees who feel micromanaged easily lose interest in their jobs (Csikszentmihalyi 2003). In this context, psychological empowerment in the workplace has emerged since the 1980s as jobs become more complex, work designs include more autonomy (Oldham and Cummings 1996), and as organizations increasingly require employees who can quickly and exibly adapt in rapidly changing business environments (Drucker 1988). Todays erce competition requires rms to transform themselves to be ready to change and adapt. To survive and thrive in such a world, an organization must always be ready to adapt. Thus, many organizations strive to have a learning culture to create and transfer knowledge for survival (Garvin 1993). Organizational learning culture refers to an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reect new knowledge and insights (Garvin 1993, 80). In many cases, the term learning organization and organizational learning are interchangeably used. While organizational learning is regarded as the collaborative learning process of individuals, learning organization is considered as the nature and/or characteristics of an organization that could promote a continuous organizational learning process (Song, Joo, and Chermack 2009). Marsick and Watkins (2003) argue that climate and cultural aspects are built by complicated components, which include leadership, the learning process, and other supportive systematic factors. Thus, the culture for organizational learning could directly or indirectly inuence organizational commitment. Problem statement In the eld of HRD, organizational commitment is one of the most frequently used variables for satisfaction, performance, change, and innovation. Although there are diverse studies exploring psychological empowerment, organizational learning culture, and organizational commitment, respectively, little research has investigated the three topics simultaneously to reect the dynamics in organizations. In particular, there is no research identifying the inuence of psychological empowerment as individual characteristics, and the inuence of organizational learning culture as organizational factors on organizational commitment. We found this to be a serious research gap. As the depth and speed in change of todays business environment is accelerating due to globalization, technological innovation, and the knowledge-based economy, jobs have become more complex, challenging, and empowering. Thus, it is psychological empowerment that can signicantly inuence employees commitment to organizations.

Human Resource Development International

427

In addition, most research on these topics has focused on employees in the private sector. Psychological empowerment, organizational learning culture, and organizational commitment are also critical for employees in the public sector. As the work environment in public organizations in Korea tends to be more stable, public sector employees have demonstrated higher job security. It is possible that the uniqueness of the work environment has an eect on the relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational commitment. This study intends to ll this research gap, focusing on the role of psychological empowerment as an antecedent of organizational commitment. Research purpose and questions The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of psychological empowerment on organizational commitment and the moderating eect of organizational learning culture on its relationship. This study provides a theoretical contribution by linking organizational commitment research with organizational learning and psychological empowerment research. An additional contribution is that this study focuses on employees in the public sector, about which very little has been known, since previous studies on organizational commitment have focused on employees in private sector organizations. The research questions are: (a) what is the relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational commitment? (b) what is the role of organizational learning culture on the relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational commitment? We rst provide a theoretical framework and hypotheses, and then research methods, including data collection and measures, are described. Next, research ndings are summarized based on a hierarchical multiple regression. Finally, the implications, limitations, and future research areas are discussed. A conceptual framework and hypotheses This study selected a set of independent variables: psychological empowerment for individual/job characteristics and organizational learning culture in the organizational context. These constructs are considered necessary for inuencing organizational commitment. Figure 1 illustrates the research model of this study. In the following section, each of the variables and the relationship between the variables will be discussed. Organizational commitment Organizational commitment refers to an individuals psychological bond to an organization as a whole. Goal and value congruence, behavioural investments in an organization and the likelihood of staying with an organization are found to be related to organizational commitment (Mowday et al. 1982). It is argued that organizational commitment is a more critical criterion than job satisfaction in understanding employee behavior because it is identied as more stable and less subject to daily uctuations than job satisfaction (Angle and Perry 1983; Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1982). Organizational commitment can be conceptualized through eective responses of individuals evaluations of their work environments.

428

B.-K. (Brian) Joo and J.H. Shim

Figure 1.

A research model.

According to Meyer and Allen (1991), there are three components of commitment: aective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Aective commitment refers to a strong belief in and acceptance of an organizations goals and values; continuance commitment refers to the willingness to exert considerable eort on behalf of an organization; and normative commitment refers to a strong desire to maintain membership in an organization (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1982). This study focuses on aective organizational commitment, which is specically dened as the employees emotional attachment to, identication with, and involvement in the organization (Meyer and Allen 1991, 67). Employees with a strong aective commitment tend to continue employment with the organization. Although the consequences of organizational commitment are not within the scope of this study, it ultimately inuences employee job/career satisfaction and turnover, and organizational performance. A meta-analysis by Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found that demographic characteristics (e.g. age, sex, level of education), role states, job characteristics, group/leader relations, organizational characteristics, motivation, and job satisfaction can enhance organizational commitment. Thus, the antecedents of organizational commitment include personal characteristics and job characteristics, as well as organizational characteristics. Psychological empowerment Widespread interest in psychological empowerment has come at a time when turbulent change and global competition require employee initiative and innovation (Drucker 1988). By denition, psychological empowerment refers to intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions reecting an individuals orientation to his or her work role: competence, impact, meaning, and selfdetermination (Spreitzer 1995, 1443). Thomas and Velthous (1990) developed the cognitive elements of empowerment based on the cognitive motivational content of Deci (1975), Hackman and Oldham (1976), and Bandura (1977, 1986). The four dimensions reect a proactive, rather than passive orientation to ones work role (Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason 1997; Thomas and Velthous 1990). Table 1 illustrates the denitions delineating each element of psychological empowerment. More specically, rst, meaning is the mechanism through which individuals become energized about work, playing a role as the engine of

Human Resource Development International

Table 1. Element Meaning Competence Self-Determination Impact The The The The Four elements of psychological empowerment. Denition

429

individuals value of the task goal or purpose degree of self-ecacy about ones ability autonomy and responsibility for an individuals actions degree to which a person can inuence outcomes at work

empowerment (Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason 1997). Second, competence is a sense of condence in their abilities. Without competence, individuals will feel inadequate. Likewise, they will lack a sense of empowerment (Conger and Kanungo 1988). Third, self-determination reects the extent of autonomy or freedom that is indispensible for a sense of empowerment (Wagner 1995). Lastly, impact refers to a belief that their actions are inuencing the system (Thomas and Velthouse 1990). Therefore, rather than being antecedents or consequences of one another, the four dimensions represent unique facets of the overall construct of empowerment (Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason 1997). A great deal of eort was made to increase individuals psychological empowerment by focusing both on empowering management practices (Blau and Alba 1982; Mainiero 1986) and on the psychological nature of empowerment (Conger and Kanungo 1988; Thomas and Velthous 1990). At the same time, psychological empowerment has been emphasized as an important factor for employees health (Zimmerman et al. 1994), satisfaction and loyalty (Spreitzer 1996). Psychological empowerment and organizational commitment Empowering individuals could result in higher levels of work satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance (Liden, Wayne, and Sparrow 2000). Several researchers also suggest that empowered employees have a higher level of organizational commitment, as empowered employees tend to be highly concentrated, self-motivated and resilient (Avolio et al. 2004; Kanter 1983; Kraimer, Seibert, and Liden 1999; Spreitzer 1995; Thomas and Velthouse 1990). Empowering conditions, such as opportunities for decision autonomy, challenge, and responsibility make employees appreciate what they have. In turn, such appreciation results in feelings of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Liden, Wayne, and Sparrow 2000). Consequently, they are likely to reciprocate by being more committed to an organization (Avolio et al. 2004; Eisenberger, Fasolo, and DavisLaMastro 1990). Thus, it is likely that the more employees are empowered, the more highly they are committed to their organization. To further examine the relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational commitment, the current study investigates the relationships between each dimension of psychological empowerment and organizational commitment. More specically to each element of psychological empowerment, employees deriving a greater sense of meaning from their work would have higher levels of commitment to their organization and energy to perform (Kanter 1983). Liden, Wayne, and Sparrow (2000) reported that the meaning dimension mediates the relationship between job characteristics and organizational commitment. Kraimer, Seibert, and Liden (1999) also found that self-determination and impact are related

430

B.-K. (Brian) Joo and J.H. Shim

positively to organizational commitment. Insofar as a sense of competence is an intrinsic work motivator (Bandura 1977), individuals who feel competent at performing their job tasks should also be more committed to continuing in that line of work (Kraimer, Seibert, and Liden 1999). Hypothesis 1: Each dimension of psychological empowerment will be positively related to organizational commitment. Organizational learning culture Interest in learning organizations as the source of organizational success and competitive advantage has been a strong focus in the eld of HRD as well as management for the last decade (Ellinger et al. 2002; Gilley and Maycunich 2000; Leonard 1998; Tsang 1997). Organizational learning culture has been noted as one of the key contextual components to enhance positive organizational outcomes. It is dened as an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reect new knowledge and insights (Garvin 1993, 80). According to Watkins and Marsicks (1997) integrative dimensions of learning organizations, there are seven action imperatives for a learning organization: (a) create continuous learning opportunities; (b) promote inquiry and dialogue; (c) encourage collaboration and team learning; (d) establish systems to capture and share learning; (e) empower people to have a collective vision; (f) connect the organization to the environment; and (g) use strategic leaders who model and support learning at the individual, team, and organization levels. In spite of active discussion about the close link between organizational learning culture and organizational commitment, only a few studies have examined the relationship between the two constructs. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) asserted that organizational characteristics can enhance organizational commitment. Some previous studies in the context of the Korean private sector (Joo 2010; Joo and Lim 2009; Lim 2003) also reported that there are moderately signicant correlations between organizational learning and aective organizational commitment. Thus, it is likely that the more employees perceive an organization as providing continuous learning opportunities, empowerment, system connection, and strategic leadership, the more likely they will be psychologically attached to their organization. Moderating role of organizational learning culture Empowerment is closely related to peoples perceptions about themselves in relation to their work environments (Bandura 1990). The environment surrounding individuals is important for increasing psychological empowerment because empowerment is not a consistent or enduring personality trait, but rather a set of cognitions shaped by work environments (Thomas and Velthous 1990). However, few studies have examined the moderating eect of organizational learning culture. In addition to the main eect, this study hypothesizes the moderating eect of organizational learning culture on the relationship between psychological empowerment and organizational commitment. That is, it is assumed that when individuals are high in the four cognitive dimensions of psychological empowerment, and when they perceive a higher level of organizational learning culture, they will have a higher level of organizational commitment.

Human Resource Development International

431

Hypothesis 2: Organizational learning culture will moderate the relationship between each dimension of psychological empowerment and organizational commitment. In summary, this study integrates useful theories from related literature streams: psychological empowerment, organizational learning, and organizational commitment. Methods The sample and data collection procedure will be described. Then, information about the four measures will be elaborated below. Finally, the analytical strategy will be briey discussed. Sample and data collection procedure To conduct the current study, researchers contacted several organizations in the public sector in Korea. One metropolitan municipal government and two district (or county) governments indicated their interests in this study. Of 350 questionnaires distributed, 294 were used for the analysis (response rate: 84%). The demographic variables included: (a) gender, (b) age, (c) education level, (d) hierarchical level, (e) the type of job, and (f) the length of a leader-follower relationship. Among the 294 respondents, 158 were male (54%), and 136 were female (46%). More than half of the participants ages were between 30 and 39 (54%); 26% of the participants ages were between 40 and 49; 15% of the participants ages were under 29; and 15 participants (5%) were over 50 years old. In terms of educational level, 72% of the respondents graduated from four-year college courses. Most respondents were in administrative jobs (67%), and 26% were in technical jobs. The length of the relationships with current supervisors was not evenly distributed across the categories: less than one year (50%); between one to two years (32%); between two to three years (8%); between three to ve years (5%); and over ve years (4%). Measures All constructs used in this study were developed in the United States and widely used all around the world due to their consistent reliability and validity across region and culture. The instruments were prepared for use in Korea using appropriate translation-back-translation procedures. We used a survey questionnaire with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Organizational commitment Of the three characteristics of organizational commitment (i.e. aective, continuance, and normative commitment), we used only aective organizational commitment (6-items) (Meyer, Allen, and Smith 1993). In this study, the reliability was .84. A sample item was, I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.

432

B.-K. (Brian) Joo and J.H. Shim

Psychological empowerment The twelve items of the psychological empowerment scale (Spreitzer 1995) were used for this study. The reliability of the measurement in this study was .88. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with the 12 statements of the four cognitive dimensions of psychological empowerment. A sample item was I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job. Organizational learning culture Instead of the 21-item version of the dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ) (Yang, Watkins, and Marsick 2004), this study used a unidimensional 7-item model that represents each sub-construct suggested by Yang (2005) and Marsick and Watkins (2003) as an alternative choice. In this way, the measurement model could have a better t to relatively limited data, satisfying the sample-to-parameter ratio (5:1 to 10:1) and increasing the utility of the measure (Song, Joo, and Chermack 2009). In eect, this treats organizational learning culture as a single construct. The reliability of the seven items was .90 in this study. A sample item included, In my organization, whenever people state their view, they also ask what others think. Results The results of the study are reported in four parts. First, the construct validity of each measurement model was examined by conrmatory factor analysis (CFA). Second, the descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities of the reduced measurement model analyses are reported. Third, the hierarchical multiple regression model was tested, and the results of the hypothesis testing are addressed. The CFA was based on the covariance matrix and used the maximum likelihood estimation, as implemented in AMOS 7.0. Descriptive statistics, correlations, reliabilities, and hierarchical multiple regression analysis were conducted, using SPSS 17.0. Measurement model assessment An overall CFA was conducted to estimate the quality of the factor structure and designated factor loadings by statistically testing the t between a proposed measurement model and the data (Yang 2005). The CFA was used to estimate the convergent and discriminate validity of the indicators of the three constructs: organizational commitment, psychological empowerment, and organizational learning culture. The goodness-of-t indices used in this study include: Chi-square (w2), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI or TLI), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). As a result of an overall CFA, the measurement model indicated a marginally acceptable t to the data (w2 [309] 593.60; p .00; RMSEA .056; NNFI .87; CFI .93). All of the factor loadings were above .45. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities Table 2 presents correlations among the three constructs and reliabilities. All of the correlation coecients were signicant, supporting all of the hypotheses. There was

Human Resource Development International

433

no evidence of multicollinearity among the four elements of psychological empowerment (.28 5 r 5 .57). The relationships between each dimension of psychological empowerment and organizational commitment and the relationship between organizational learning culture and organizational commitment were both signicant. All measures demonstrated adequate levels of reliability (.80.90). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis To test the hypotheses of this study, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used. Table 3 illustrates the results of hierarchical multiple regression of psychological empowerment, organizational commitment and organizational learning culture. In step 1, to control demographic variables, gender, age, education,

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities. Mean S.D .69 .63 .72 .77 .60 .65 1 (.86) .45* .40* .28* .55* .28* 2 (.80) .55* .36* .46* .20* 3 4 5 6

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Meaning Competency Self-determination Impact Organizational Learning Culture Organizational Commitment

3.70 4.45 3.38 3.00 3.20 3.22

(.85) .57* .49* .26*

(.88) .45* .17*

(.90) .42*

(.84)

Note. Pearson correlations: *p 5 .01; n 294.

Table 3.

Hierarchical multiple regression results for organizational commitment. Organizational Commitment Model 1 Model 2 7.03 7.03 7.09* 7.04 .02 .37** .05 .17** .17** Model 3 .02 .02 7.08 7.03 .03 .32** .05 .13* .17** .26** Model 4 .01 .01 7.06 7.03 .03 .47 7.49 .90** 7.04 .45 7.05 .18 7.24** .07 19.46** .49 .02

Demographics - Gender - Age - Education - Hierarchical Level - Length Main Eects - Meaning - Competency - Self-Determination - Impact - Orgl Learning Culture (OLC) Interaction Eects - Meaning * OLC - Competency * OLC - Self-determination * OLC - Impact * OLC F Adjusted R2 DR2
Note: p 5 .10; *p 5 .05; **p 5 .01.

7.02 .09 7.12* 7.04 7.02

4.04** .04

22.65** .42 .38

24.87** .47 .05

434

B.-K. (Brian) Joo and J.H. Shim

hierarchical level, and the length of a leader-follower relationship were entered. These control variables accounted for 4% of the variance in organizational commitment. Only educational level was found to be signicant. That is, the higher an employees education level, the lower his or her organizational commitment. In step 2, the main eects of the four dimensions of psychological empowerment explained an additional 38% of the variance in organizational commitment. Except for competency, three dimensions of psychological empowerment turned out to be signicant. Meaning indicated a stronger eect size than self-determination and impact did. In step 3, as a result of entering a second main eect, organizational learning culture, an additional 5% of the variance in organizational commitment was accounted for. Finally, in step 4, the moderation eects of organizational learning culture on the relationships among the four dimensions of psychological empowerment and organizational commitment were examined. The results indicated that there were signicant moderation eects of psychological empowerment and organizational learning culture on organizational commitment (DR2 .02). More specic, organizational learning culture turned out to signicantly moderate the relationship between competence and organizational commitment and the relationship between self-determination and organizational commitment (see Figures 2 and 3). With regard to moderation eects, overall both moderation eects indicated a similar pattern, showing that both the level of psychological empowerment (i.e. competency and self-determination) and the perception of organizational learning culture had a positive eect on the level of organizational commitment. Specically, when employees perceived higher competence, they tended to respond by having high organizational commitment (see Figure 2). The low competence group exhibited low commitment, regardless of the level of organizational learning culture. On the contrary, the high competence group showed higher commitment when they perceived a higher learning culture. This nding implies that organizational learning culture plays a catalytic role in increasing organizational commitment for the high competence group. However, its eect size was only modest. As for the moderation eect of organizational learning culture on the relationship between self-determination and organizational learning culture (see Figure 3), employees with a higher learning culture demonstrated higher

Figure 2. A moderation eect of organizational learning culture on the relationship between competency and organizational commitment.

Human Resource Development International

435

Figure 3. A moderation eect of organizational learning culture on the relationship between self-determination and organizational commitment.

organizational commitment. Especially for those with low self-determination, the eect of organizational learning culture was greater. Employees in the high selfdetermination group perceived high commitment, even if they perceived a low level of organizational learning culture. Thus, it can be said that when the situation (i.e. organizational learning culture) is weak and unfavourable, personal characteristics (i.e. psychological empowerment) are more important for organizational commitment. The eect size of the moderation was relatively small (DR2 .02). As Evans (1985) and Mellor (1992) have argued, however, even a 1% increase in DR2 is not trivial, especially in the case in which a directional hypothesis has been made to anticipate the moderation eect. As such, the results of this study show the importance of considering the moderation eect when investigating the hypothesized relationship. Discussion In this section the ndings of this study are discussed, compared with previous research. Then, we will discuss the implications of this study for research and practice in the eld of HRD. Next, the limitations of this study and recommendations for future research are discussed. Finally, some concluding remarks follow. Research ndings This study found that psychological empowerment and organizational learning culture positively and signicantly aected the level of employees organizational commitment. Additionally, the moderation eects of organizational learning culture were found to be signicant. Detailed ndings are discussed below. First, employees in the public sector of Korea exhibited higher organizational commitment when they had higher psychological empowerment and organizational learning culture. Overall 49% of the variance in organizational commitment was explained by the above- mentioned factors. In terms of eect size, four dimensions of psychological empowerment (DR2 .38) were stronger than organizational learning

436

B.-K. (Brian) Joo and J.H. Shim

culture (DR2 .05). Among the four dimensions of psychological empowerment, meaning, self-determination and impact showed positive and signicant relationships with organizational commitment. This result was consistent with the ndings in previous research studies (Laschinger et al. 2000; Liden, Wayne, and Sparrow 2000; Avolio et al. 2004). The results of the current study showed that meaning had the strongest eect on commitment for public sector employees. Put dierently, employees perceived higher organizational commitment when the task goal or purpose is met with individual value. This study also found that while the correlation coecient between competence and organizational commitment was signicant, the regression coecient of competence was non-signicant. The result is noticeable because most of the previous results found direct and indirect eects of competence on organizational commitment. A possible explanation for this nding is that training programmes in the Korean civil service are mandatory, emphasizing moral or attitudinal issues rather than knowledge and skill-based on-the-job training (Kim 1992). We also believe that building competencies does not matter for employees organizational commitment, because most public sector employees in Korea have relatively strong job security, which makes employees more complacent rather than motivated to build their competencies. Second, employees demonstrated the highest organizational commitment when they perceived a higher organizational learning culture. The eect of size of the organizational learning culture was smaller, but signicant. That is, the more employees perceived that an organization provided continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, established systems, empowerment, system connections, and strategic leadership, the higher they were committed to their organizations. This result supports previous research ndings (Joo and Lim 2009; Lim 2003). Thus, the results of current study will add an important building block in organizational learning culture and organizational commitment research. Finally, with regard to moderation eects, the perception of organizational learning culture moderated the relationship between psychological empowerment (i.e. competency and self-determination) and organizational commitment. For employees who perceive themselves as highly competent and lack self-determination to increase their level of organizational commitment, rms need to develop a better organizational learning culture, create continuous learning opportunities, promote inquiry and dialogue, encourage collaboration and team learning, establish systems to capture and share learning, empower people to have a collective vision, connect the organization to the environment, and use strategic leaders who model and support learning at the individual, team, and organization levels. Implications With regard to the theoretical contributions, this study links psychological empowerment, organizational learning culture and organizational commitment research. Previously, little research integrating the three areas has been conducted. Moreover, no research has explored the relationship among these constructs for public sector employees in Korea. This study found that meaning, self-determination and impact were signicantly associated with organizational commitment. We also found that competence is the only non-signicant psychological empowerment dimension. Additionally, this study recognizes the critical role of organizational learning culture in organizational commitment. The results of current study support

Human Resource Development International

437

the importance of increasing employees psychological empowerment and establishing organizational learning culture. The practical implications of the results are suggested below. First, organizational learning culture can signicantly inuence their organizational commitment, and ultimately, their turnover intentions. Thus, as Yang, Watkins, and Marsick (2004) suggest, HRD can play an important role in building organizational learning culture by encouraging continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, and empowerment. Additionally, HRD can contribute to enhancing embedded systems, system connections, and structural leadership. For example, HRD can help organizations build an organizational culture of open communication that allows people to express their opinions, listen to others viewpoints, and support questioning and feedback. In turn, this culture contributes to fostering organizational commitment and lowering turnover rate. Second, HRD professionals should establish environments preferable to increasing employee empowerment for improving organizational commitment because empowerment is not an enduring personality trait generalizable across situations, but rather a set of cognitions shaped and changed by a work environment (Thomas and Velthouse 1990). More specic, HRD professionals can play and important role in increasing employees psychological empowerment, developing managers and supervisors (McLean 2006). By providing training and development programmes for managers to adopt new roles as coaches, mentors and facilitators, the level of employees psychological empowerment can be increased. Third, while not included in this study, the changing role of managers is important. For many reasons, the role of manager has changed from the traditional hierarchical director to being a supportive leader, or manager-as-coach. Manager-ascoach can be dened as a leadership approach based on the condition of constructive feedback designed to bring the most out of people by showing that they are respected and valued (Goodstone and Diamante 1998; Hargrove, 1995; Hudson 1999) and manager-as-coach was suggested to be eective in empowering employees to exceed prior levels of performance (Burdett 1998; Hargrove 1995). Additionally, the level of employees psychological empowerment can be increased when managers adopt new roles as mentors because the mentor is portrayed as one who serves as a role model, friend, and counsellor, who accepts and helps the protege develop a positive and secure self-image (Kram 1985). Since empowerment is the motivational concept of self-ecacy (Conger and Kanungo 1988), the positive eect of mentoring will help a protege form four positive cognitions of psychological empowerment. Through adopting new roles, managers and HRD professionals can provide additional opportunities for employees to fulll their potential, and motivation for diverse issues and tasks, which might inuence their psychological empowerment, and ultimately, their organizational commitment. Limitations and future research In terms of methodology, this study has several potential limitations. First, the sample of this study is likely restricted to a certain group with similar demographic characteristics: employees in the public sector in a Korean cultural setting. Second, this study relied on self-reported and reective recollections of the indicators of the constructs in this study by employees who volunteered their participation. Because of the perceptual nature of the data, there is the possibility of a percept-percept bias.

438

B.-K. (Brian) Joo and J.H. Shim

Last, this empirical study connes itself to the cross-sectional survey method, which leaves room for speculation with regard to causality among the variables. To resolve the limitations above, future research needs to be based on multiple sources because a cross-sectional survey method restricts research to take part its target group. In addition, to increase the generalizability of the present study, more data collection from various locations is needed. To include more varied demographic backgrounds, more research in dierent locations is recommended. The impact of personal and contextual factors on organizational commitment were explored in this study. The ndings of this study could be considered as incomplete because of the possibility of other moderating and mediating variables in the relationships between the suggested constructs. Future research should continue to examine psychological empowerment and other contextual factors of the work environment. To extend the ndings of this study, several areas for future research are recommended. First, while organizational learning culture was found to be important for organizational commitment, the organizations that participated in this study were conned to the public sector. More research about the impact of organizational learning culture on employee attitudes is recommended in dierent organizational and cultural contexts. Second, future research will benet from a more integrative approach that includes some personal characteristics such as core self-evaluations, a proactive personality, and/or goal orientation. In this regard, more research on the eects of personal factors on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment is recommended in the future. Third, supportive leadership could play a role as a moderator or as a predictor of psychological empowerment. More research using transformational leadership and/or authentic leadership is recommended. Conclusion In a knowledge-based economy, attraction, motivation, and the retention of talented employees have been critical concerns in many organizations. Whether it is in the public or private sector, for organizations to survive and thrive, they need committed employees. Fierce global competition and rapid technological advancement have made jobs more complex and demanding. Thus, employees need to be more psychologically empowered. This study found the positive inuences psychological empowerment and organizational learning culture on organizational commitment. HRD professionals can help employees improve organizational commitment by establishing a positive organizational learning culture and by providing practices that support empowerment, and thus to attract and retain more talented employees. References
Allen, N.J., and J.P. Meyer. 1996. Aective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior 49, no. 3: 25276. Angle, H.L., and J.L. Perry. 1983. Organizational commitment: Individual and organizational inuences. Work and Occupations 10, no. 2: 12346. Avolio, B.J., W. Zhu, W. Koh, and P. Bhatia. 2004. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of Psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25, no. 8: 95168. Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Human Resource Development International

439

Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: a social-cognitive view. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. 1990. Perceived self-ecacy in the exercise of personal agency. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 2, no. 2: 12863. Beck, K., and C. Wilson. 2000. Development of aective organizational commitment: A crosssequential examination of change with tenure. Journal of Vocational Behavior 56, no. 1: 11436. Blau, J.B., and R.D. Alba. 1982. Empowering nets of participation. Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 36379. Burdett, J.O. 1998. Forty things every manager should know about coaching. Journal of Management Development 17, no. 2: 14252. Conger, J.A., and R.N. Kanungo. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review 13, no. 3: 47182. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2003. Good business: Leadership, ow, and the making of meaning. New York: Penguin Books. Deci, E.L. 1975. Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum. Drucker, P.F. 1988. The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review 66, no. 1: 4553. Drucker, P.F. 1999. Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest challenge. California Management Review 41, no. Winter: 7994. Eisenberger, R., P. Fasolo, and V. Davis-LaMastro. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology 75, no. 1: 159. Ellinger, A.D., A.E. Ellinger, B. Yang, and S.W. Howton. 2002. The relationship between the learning organization concept and rms nancial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly 13, no. 1: 521. Evans, M.G. 1985. A Monte Carlo study of the eects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36, no. 3: 30523. Fried, Y., and G.R. Ferris. 1987. The validity of job characteristic model: A review of metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology 40, no. 2: 287322. Garvin, D.A. 1993. Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review 73, no. 4: 7891. Gilley, J.W., and A. Maycunich. 2000. Organizational learning, performance and change: An introduction to strategic human resource development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Goodstone, M.S., and T. Diamante. 1998. Organizational use of therapeutic change: Strengthening multi-score feedback systems through interdisciplinary coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 50, no. 3: 15263. Hackman, J.R., and G.R. Oldham. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, no. 2: 25079. Hackman, J.R., and G.R. Oldham. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addisson-Wesley. Hargrove, R. 1995. Masterful coaching. San Francisco, CA: Pfeier. Hudson, F.M. 1999. The handbook of coaching: A comprehensive resource guide for managers, consultants, and human resource professionals. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Joo, B. 2007. The impact of contextual and personal characteristics on employee creativity in Korean rms. Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota. Joo, B. 2010. Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: The roles of organizational learning culture, leader-member exchange quality, and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly 21, no. 1: 6985. Joo, B., and T. Lim. 2009. The eects of organizational learning culture, perceived job complexity, and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 16, no. 1: 4860. Joo, B., and G.N. McLean. 2006. Best employer studies: A conceptual model from a literature review and a case study. Human Resource Development Review 5, no. 2: 22857. Kanter, R.M. 1983. The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kim, P.S. 1992. Modernizing the Korean civil service: Policy alternatives for democratization. The Asian Journal of Public administration 14, no. 1: 6378.

440

B.-K. (Brian) Joo and J.H. Shim

Kraimer, M.L., S.E. Seibert, and R.C. Liden. 1999. Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59, no. 1: 12742. Kram, K.E. 1985. Mentoring at work: developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foreman. Laschinger, S.H., J. Finegan, J. Shamian, and P. Wilk. 2001. Impact of structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: Expanding Kanters model. Journal of Nursing Administration 31, no. 5: 26072. Leonard, D. 1998. Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Levering, R. 1998. The 100 best companies to work in America. Fortune, January 12. Lim, T. 2003. The relationship between work environment factors and organizational knowledge creation process. Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota. Linden, R.C., S.J. Wayne, and R.T. Sparrowe. 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, no. 3: 40716. Mainiero, L.A. 1986. Coping with powerlessness: The relationship of gender and job dependency to empowerment-strategy usage. Administrative Science Quarterly 31, no. 4: 63353. Marsick, V.J., and K.E. Watkins. 2003. Demonstrating the value of an organizations learning culture: The dimensions of the learning of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources 5, no. 2: 13251. Mathieu, J.E., and D. Zajac. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychology Bulletin 108, no. 2: 17194. Mellor, S. 1992. The inuence of layo severity on post layo union commitment among supervisor: The moderating eect of the perceived legitimacy of a layo account. Personnel Psychology 45, no. 3: 579600. Meyer, J.P., and N.J. Allen. 1991. A three component conceptualization of organization commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1, no. 1: 6189. Meyer, J.P., N.J. Allen, and C.A. Smith. 1993. Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology 78, no. 4: 53851. McLean, G.N. 2006. Organization development: Principles, processes, performance. Culver City, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Mowday, R. 1998. Reections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 8, no. 4: 387401. Mowday, R., R. Steers, and L. Porter. 1982. Employee-organization linkages: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press. Oldham, G.R., and A. Cummings. 1996. Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal 39, no. 3: 60734. Parker, S.K., T.D. Wall, and J.L. Cordery. 2001. Future work design and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74, no. 4: 41340. Song, J.H., B. Joo, and T.J. Chermack. 2009. The dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ): A validation study in Korean context. Human Resource Development Quarterly 20, no. 1: 4364. Spreitzer, G.M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal 38, no. 4: 144265. Spreitzer, G.M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal 39, no. 2: 483504. Spreitzer, G.M., M.A. Kizilos, and S.W. Nason. 1997. A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and eectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management 23, no. 5: 679704. Thomas, K.W., and B.A. Velthouse. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review 15, no. 4: 66681. Tsang, E.W.K. 1997. Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations 50, no. 1: 7389.

Human Resource Development International

441

Wagner, J.A., III. 1995. On beating head horses, reconsidering reconsiderations and ending disputes: Further thought about a recent study of research on participation. Academy of Management Review 20, no. 3: 5069. Watkins, K.E., and V.J. Marsick. 1997. Dimensions of the learning organization. Warwick, RI: Partners for the Learning Organization. Yang, B. 2005. Factor analysis methods. In Research in organizations: foundations and methods of inquiry, ed. R.A. Swanson, and E.F. Holton III, 18199. Thousand Oaks, CA: BerrettKoehler. Yang, B., K.E. Watkins, and V.J. Marsick. 2004. The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly 15, no. 1: 3155. Zimmerman, M.A., J. Ramirez, E. Suarez, G. de la Rosa, and M.A. Castro. 1994. Empowering processes: An example from an HIV/AIDS prevention project for Mexican homosexual men. An empowerment approach. Health Education and Behavior 24, no. 2: 17790.

Copyright of Human Resource Development International is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.