to the Competencies factor and was deemed as being a potentially useful
supplement to Hancer and George’s existing two indicators for Competencies (and
increasing the potential for successfully modelling this factor). The item is I have
the knowledge that I need to make my own decisions at work. The item is
included in the survey as EM8 where it complements EM6 and EM7 (which
themselves correspond with Hancer and George’s Co1 and Co2). Figure 5 - 4
summarises the items for measuring the Employee Empowerment factor.
Items In1 (I have freedom in determining how to do my job) and In5 (I decide on
how to go about doing my job) were considered to be somewhat tautological and
in the interests of parsimony these were combined (and the language simplified)
into one item (EM1) I can choose the best way of doing my job. Regarding the
other Influence items: EM2 corresponds with In4; EM3 with In2; EM4 is
synonymous with In3; and EM5 corresponds with In4. One additional Influence-
related item is included (as EM9 ) - once again drawn from Lundberg et al. (2009)
- I am comfortable/happy to tell my supervisor and co-workers about my ideas,
thoughts and suggestions about our work). This item is included - somewhat
speculatively - on the basis that there was no item reflecting this aspect of
Influence in Fulford and Enz or Hancer and George.
In summary, the Empowerment factor consists of two discrete factors: EM-I
(Empowerment – Influence) and EM-C (Empowerment – Competencies). The
latter, EM-C is proposed as a discrete latent variable somewhat speculatively
since the original factor - derived from exploratory factor analyses by Fulford and
Enz (1995) and Hancer and George (2003) – consisted only of two indicators
(EM6 and EM7). For this research, and to aid identification of the model, the two
original competencies indicators were supplemented with EM8 drawn from
Lundberg et al. (2009). If the measurement model confirms EM-I and EM-C as
distinct and valid constructs that covary significantly with the other constructs in
the measurement model, then EM-I and EM-C will be modelled in the structural
model as sub-factors of a second-level Empowerment construct.
Social Support
In the broader organisational psychology literature, social support / positive social
environments have been found to contribute towards reducing a number of
counterproductive organisational outcomes such as stress (e.g. Fisher 1985;