Employee Empowerment (EM) was measured in the survey instrument using an
8 - item scale, which was reduced from Hancer and George’s 2003 11-item
empowerment scale. Following the model development process in Models 4 and
5, the EM scale was reduced to three items (EM1, EM3 and EM4). The removal of
indicators EM6, EM7 and EM8 makes substantive sense as these all measure
Hancer and George’s (2003) Competencies sub-factor (which measured employee
perceptions of self-efficacy). The primary focus of this research was on Hancer
and George’s Influence factor (which is represented adequately by the remaining
indicators (1, 3 and 4). Indicators that did measure the Influence factor but
which were removed are:
EM2 - dropped during the scale/survey development stage of the research
EM9 - drawn from Lundberg et al. (2009) and speculatively included as part of
the Influence sub-factor;
EM5 - removal has no substantive implications as it has considerable item
overlap with EM4.
In summary, the remaining items (EM1, 3 and 4) adequately measure the core
concept of interest, that is, the Influence dimension of Hancer and George’s
(2003) empowerment measure.
The indicators for the exploratory Work Meaning construct were subsumed into
the EPA (Employee Positive Attitudes) construct during the development of Models
3 and 3b. The previous model, Model 2, is included in the final findings of this
research as a valid model that measures the mediating role of work meaning
between motivational leadership and job performance. Two items (ME2 and ME4)
were removed from the Work Meaning construct during the survey and scale
development stage of the research. During the development of Model 2, ME5 and
ME7 were removed from the model owing to low factor loadings. The remaining
items (ME1, ME3 and ME6) describe employees’ Satisfaction, Enjoyment and
Social Status from Work and the inclusion of these means that both the Intrinsic
and Extrinsic dimensions of work meaning from Wollack et al.’s (1971) work are
represented in the Work Meaning construct for this research.
Following the failure of the three initial employee attitude constructs - Work
Meaning (ME), Job Satisfaction (JS) and Affective Organisational Commitment
(AOC) - to achieve satisfactory discriminant validity, the Employee Positive
Attitudes (EPA) construct was developed as an amalgamation of these. As an
exploratory and ad hoc construct, this new construct was able to be interpreted