The impact of empowerment on service employees *.
Hospitality industry
Fulford, Mark D.
Enz, Cathy A.
Pub Date:
Name: Journal of Managerial Issues Publisher: Pittsburg State University - Department of Economics Audience: Academic; Trade Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Business; Human resources and labor relations Copyright: COPYRIGHT 1995 Pittsburg State University - Department of Economics ISSN: 1045-3695
Date: Summer, 1995 Source Volume: 7 Source Issue: 2
SIC Code: 5810 Eating and Drinking Places; 7000 HOTELS AND OTHER LODGING PLACES

Accession Number:
Full Text:
Employee empowerment programs are rapidly being implemented in organizations across the spectrum of industries. Within the hospitality industry, Guest Quarters Suite Hotels, Westin Hotels and Resorts, and Omni Hotels have each adopted empowerment philosophies. In addition, Hampton Inns and Homewood Suites have recently unveiled "service guarantee programs" which include a component on the empowerment of employees who are in direct contact with guests.

Many service organizations believe that empowering their employees will ultimately lead to increased profitability, while directly enhancing customer satisfaction (Brymer, 1991; Sternberg, 1992). In the service sector, what satisfies the customer is not only the product, but also the delivery of quality service. And it is the employees who have a tremendous impact on the customers' perceptions of the quality of both the product and the service. So, in essence, the employee is the key ingredient to increased service delivery and subsequent profitability. Organizations desiring increased profitability through implementation of an employee empowerment program are trying to influence the attitudes and behaviors (e.g., job satisfaction and performance) of these employees.

The purpose of this article is to assess the effects of perceived empowerment on the attitudes of employees in several service based organizations. Empowerment has been touted as having beneficial effects on employee satisfaction, employee turnover, and customer service (Bower and Lawler, 1992). However, no empirical evidence currently exists to support these claims. In this article, results from an empirical study of thirty independent private clubs will be presented.


All too often, empowerment is conceived as the delegation of some of management's responsibilities to subordinates. This usually manifests itself with the employee having additional tasks to perform on the job as a result of the organization removing some layers of management. Where this conceptualization falls short is that it stresses organizational redesign and doesn't consider the psychological needs of employees. Several authors (e.g., Ashforth, 1989, Block, 1993; Greenberger and Strasser, 1986; Mainiero, 1986; Pfeffer, 1994) have stressed that individuals seek control over their environments, including the work setting. In fact, Greenberger and Strasser (1986) indicate that workers so strongly desire control in the workplace that they will continually attempt to increase their level of perceived influence--even when the organization places barriers in their way. Conger and Kanungo (1988), relying on the work of Deci (1975) and Bandura (198u), describe empowerment as an "enabling" process, whereby individuals feel that their behavior is self-determined and they believe they can adequately perform a given task. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) go one step further. In addition to the aforementioned, they also include the belief that individuals need to feet as if they are performing meaningful tasks. Combining these components, our conceptualization of empowerment stresses the individual's perceptions of meaning, influence, and mastery. Employees express empowerment when they view their jobs as having meaning, see opportunities to influence the way work is done, and feel competent in the job itself.

Recently, Spreitzer (1992) attempted to develop an operational definition of empowerment and validate the construct. She reviewed the interdisciplinary literature on empowerment and identified 150 themes. Then, she asked two independent caters to sort the themes into content categories. This resulted in four categories or dimensions of empowerment: meaning, self-efficacy, self-determination, and personal control. The Spreitzer scale has been evaluated for its psychometric properties in a manufacturing context, the results of which support the four dimensions of empowerment as follows.

Meaning refers to the congruence between one's value system and the goals or objectives of the activity in which one is engaged at work. In this sense, "empowered individuals believe in and care about what they do" (Spreitzer, 1992: 9). Thomas and Velthouse (1994) indicate that low degrees of meaning may result in apathy, while high degrees may result in commitment or involvement. Therefore, it is argued that Meaning has significant effects on employee attitudes. The effect of Meaning on employee performance seems likely too, although no indication of this relationship is found in the literature. In addition, since Meaning is derived from the job itself, certain positions within a service operation, such as dishwasher, may contribute to lour Meaning and result in employee apathy while high customer contact positions, such as waitstaff, may lead to more perceived meaning.

Self-efficacy refers to the belief that one is competent and can successfully perform an assigned task. Conger and Kanungo (1988) describe self-efficacy as the development of a "can-do" attitude. The results of increased self-efficacy beliefs are increased amounts of effort by individuals, because they believe they can put forth the effort required to master the level of performance desired by the organization. Many service jobs require low levels of skill, hence mastery is fairly easy to achieve. As a result, this dimension of empowerment may be more strongly related to performance and service delivery than to job satisfaction, concern for others, or loyalty. A service employee may have a high level of mastery without the accompanying high levels of organizational involvement.

Self-determination is the extent to which individuals believe they have choice concerning their own behavior. Those employees that believe they control their own work behaviors would be high on self-determination, while those that believe their behavior is controlled by management would be low on this dimension. Deci and Ryan (1985) propose that low self-determination would lead to tension, negative emotional tone, and decreased self-esteem. Therefore, we predict that this dimension will have significant effects on job satisfaction and loyalty and, to a lesser degree, explain performance and service delivery. The role of self-determination in predicting employee attitudes is critical for service employees. Since many service workers perform simple tasks, the ability to control their own work takes on even greater importance. When a worker performs routine, semi-skilled tasks, the empowerment edge is the opportunity to determine how the work gets done. Hence this aspect of empowerment should more significantly influence satisfaction with the job, even if it does not alter performance substantially.

Personal control captures the extent to which individuals believe they can affect or influence organizational outcomes (Ashforth, 1989). This includes not only the ability to affect change; but also the opportunity. Personal control is different from self-efficacy in its focus on influence versus competence. It differs from self-determination in its attention to organizational, not individual outcomes. In the context of service, this dimension captures the degree to which employees can control the customer's experience of service (an organizational outcome), not just their own jobs (a self-determination outcome). When an employee lacks personal control of consequences, it is expected that satisfaction and loyalty will decline. This dimension of empowerment is predicted to have significant effects on employee attitudes, such as satisfaction, and lesser effects on performance.

It is possible that those occupying terrain positions within service organizations perceive greater opportunities to influence the way the organization operates. For example, as a result of poor service delivery or a customer complaint, those in direct customer-contact positions have an opportunity to remedy the situation or compensate the guest in some way as compared to those who occupy back-of-house positions and do not regularly come in contact with guests. Hence, the ability to experience this aspect of empowerment may be altered by position occupied within the organization.

It is important to note that these four dimensions of empowerment were identified through research conducted in a manufacturing environment. This study is concerned with service organizations, and thus the four dimensions may not fully apply. In service firms, a large percentage of organizational outcomes are determined by employee behaviors. The employees' abilities to influence their own behaviors may ultimately influence organizational outcomes. We suspect that the dimensions of self-determination and personal control may overlap in a service context given the nature of work in service industries.


Based on the literature reviewed earlier {Ashforth, 1989; Block, 1993; Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Pfeffer, 1994; Thomas and Velthouse, 1994}, it is proposed that employee perceptions of empowerment will have significant positive effects on critical employee attitudes. The first hypothesis below summarizes this proposed linkage.

H1: Service employees' perceptions of empowerment will account for a significant proportion of the variance in their reported levels of perceived job satisfaction, loyalty, performance, degree of service delivery, and concern for others.

Empowerment is expected to have a greater effect on work attitudes than on actual performance (Ashforth, 1989; Deci and Ryan, 19M; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). In essence, perceived empowerment alters how one views the job and organization, and, to a lesser degree, how an employee performs a job or provides service. Hence, the second hypothesis is offered as follows:

H2: Service employee's perceptions of empowerment will more positively anti significantly affect perceived job satisfaction, concern for others, and loyalty than perceived work performance and level of service delivery.

Finally, service employees in different positions are expected to experience different levels of perceived empowerment. For employees with high custom r contact, overall levels of perceived empowerment should be greater than for those employees who do not come in direct contact with customers (Ashforth, 1989). Hence, the following hypothesis is offered:

H3: Service employees who occupy back-of-house positions with little or no customer contact (e.g., kitchen and room cleaning) will report lamer levels of perceived empowerment than those employees who occupy front-of-house, high customer contact positions (e.g., golf pro or waitstaff).


Data Collection

The data were collected from service employees in thirty private clubs managed by participants in an executive education program at a northeastern university. None of the clubs studied had formal empowerment programs. However, all of the executives were familiar with the concept. Prior to the executive program, the club general managers were sent a fixed number of surveys to distribute to their employees. These surveys were then mailed back directly to the university. Eight three percent (839) of the clubs participated in the study. Of these, the within-club response rates ranged from a high of 86% to a low of %%. A total of 297 club employees responded to the survey. Seventy-eight percent of the employees were full-time, and the remaining twenty-two percent were part-time employees. Table 1 provides descriptive information regarding the respondents.

An examination of the data revealed that the respondents were almost evenly split between males (56%) and females (44%). The average age of the respondents was 35 years, with a range of between 16 and 67 years old. About one-third of the employees worked for the club for under three years (median tenure = 3 years), with the average tenure at six years. The range of years in service to their clubs was extremely wide with three percent of the respondents having over twenty years. Most of the respondents (50%) were assigned to Food & Beverage (dining room/bar, catering, and kitchen), with a reasonably even representation from back and front-of-house. Clubs were located in all geographic regions of the United States with the Eastern region (both Northeast and Southeast) being most highly represented (over 60%).



Empowerment was measured using a scale developed by Spreitzer (1992), The scale is comprised of 12 items designed to capture four distinct dimensions of empowerment, including: (1) Meaning--a sense of caring or alignment of actions with values, (2) Self-efficacy-belief in one's abilities, (3) Self-determination-a sense of choice in initiating behavior, and (4) Personal control--belief that one can offer input and influence actions in the work environment.

The scale was factor analyzed using a principal component method, varimax rotation to examine the integrity of the factor structure developed by Spreitzer (1992). Those factors with an eigenvalue greater than one were retained in the final solution. The analysis in Table 2 reveals a three factor structure, in which the dimensions of meaning and self-efficacy are distinct, but the dimensions of self-determination and personal control collapse into a single factor we have identified and named influence. The respondent scores for each of the three individual components of empowerment were then used in the subsequent regression analyses described later.

The factors identified in this study were consistent with those conceptualized by Spreitzer, with the exception of one factor. In the current study, the empowerment dimensions of self-determination and personal control loaded onto a single factor named influence. A close examination of the original conceptualization of empowerment suggests that self-determination (a sense of choice in one's own actions) and personal control (the belief that one can influence organizational outcomes) may indeed combine when the organization under study is small (i.e., a country club versus a large Fortune 500 firm), the levels of management are fewer (less bureaucratic), and the nature of the work brings the employee directly into contact with the customer (i.e., a service firm versus a manufacturing organization).

In the club environment, the ability to influence one's actions is not separate from the ability to influence the organization. In short, given the nature of labor-intensive service organizations, and the club environment in particular, it is logical that the two dimensions of empowerment developed in a large manufacturing setting would collapse into a single construct called influence. As further evidence of the 'viability of these three subscales to capture empowerment, reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alphas) were calculated which revealed a high degree of scale reliability (0.70 to 0.83).

Meaning--This dimension of empowerment captures the following: A wholeness regarding the link between actions and beliefs. Individuals believe or care about what they do. Their actions are aligned with their value system. In this study the reliability coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.80.

Self-Efficacy--This aspect of empowerment represents a belief in one's capacity to perform a task (a sense of self-effectiveness or personal competence). The reliability coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.70 for this study.

Influence---This dimension pertains to an individual's belief that he/she can affect or influence club outcomes and decisions. A reliability coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) of 0.83 was found for this subscale.

Dependent Variables

Each of the dependent variables is a single-item measure.

Satisfaction was measured by asking employees how satisfied they were with their job in general. Responses ranged from very dissatisfied to very satisfied using a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Loyalty to the club was captured by asking employees how loyal they were to the club using a 5-point, Likert-type scale. Response options were from a low of "no loyalty" to a high of "a great deal of loyalty."

Employee performance, Level of service delivery, and Concern for others were examined by asking respondents to assess themselves on these factors using the following approach. Equating 140% to the best the employee could do, they were asked to indicate what percentage of this ideal they felt they currently achieved in overall performance to the club, overall service provided to members, and overall concern for people. The potential range was 0% to 100% achievement of the ideal.


Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of all independent and dependent variables. As can be seen, the highest mean score of the empowerment dimensions was that for self-efficacy, suggesting that most employees felt highly competent in their jobs. The mean score far influence was the lowest of the three empowerment dimensions, yet had the greatest amount of variance, suggesting that some employees experience a great deal of influence in their jobs while other employees experience very little.

Hypothesis Testing

Table 4 presents the results of five different multiple regression analyses. In each model, the dependent variable was regressed on the three dimensions of perceived employee empowerment. The purpose of the analyses was to examine the degree to which meaning, self-efficacy, and influence explained employee perceptions of satisfaction, loyalty, overall work performance, level of service provided to members, and concern for others. The overall F-values for each of the five regression analyses support the first hypothesis that the dimensions of empowerment provide a significant explanation for variation in satisfaction, loyalty, performance, service delivery, and concern for people.

In support of the second hypothesis, the greatest degree of variance explained by empowerment is found in the models that examine the work attitudes of loyalty (Adj. [R.sup.2]=.35), employee satisfaction (Adj. [R.sup.2]=.15), and concern for others (Adj. [R.sup.2]=.09). The smallest amount of explanatory power is found when predicting levels of performance (Adj. [R.sup.2]=.05) and service delivery (Adj. [R.sup.2]=.02). Examination of the beta weights as shown in Table 4 offers insight into which dimensions of empowerment offer the greatest predictive strength. Meaning is the most critical dimension of empowerment when explaining loyalty, performance, service delivery, and concern for others. Meaning and Influence are equally significant predictors of satisfaction with work. Self-efficacy was not a significant predictor of satisfaction, performance, service delivery, or concern for others.

Most discussions of empowerment focus on employees who have direct customer contact and are hence front-of-house personnel. Given the exclusion of service employees who are in the back-of-house from discussions of empowerment, these position locations were included for comparative purposes. By splitting the employees into front-of-house (e.g., dining room waitstaff), back-of--house (e.g., kitchen), and recreation (e.g., tennis and golf), and then conducting ANOVAs on the empowerment dimensions, it was revealed that no statistically significant differences emerged (F=1.219, p=.34 for Meaning; F=1.56, p=.32 for Self-efficacy; F=.17, p=.85 for Influence). Hence, the third hypothesis was not sup. ported. Employees in high customer contact positions did not differ from others in their perceptions of meaning, influence, or self-efficacy.

Supplemental Analyses

Given that a large percentage of hospitality employees are part-timers, it is of some interest to explore the potential differences in perceived empowerment between part-time and full-time employees. The results of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) reveal significant differences between part-time and full-time employees on the degree of meaning (F= 18.41, p<.041) and influence they find in their jobs (F=13.46 p<.001). There were no significant differences between part-timers and full-timers on the degree of self-efficacy (F=.412, p=.52). This similarity in self-efficacy is not surprising due to the low skill levels required in most positions within the industry.

To consider whether part-time and full-time employees in one club may differ from part-time and full-time employees in another club, an Analysis of Co-variance (ANOVA) was performed to control for club membership. The findings revealed that the club co-variate did not significantly explain any of the variance in meaning (F=1.8, p=.18), self-efficacy (F=.95, p=.33), or influence (F=1.9, p=.17). This provides additional evidence of the employee work status effect and rules out any effects due to club membership.


Three major findings emerge from this study. First, perceived empowerment does have an effect on satisfaction, loyalty, performance, service delivery, and concern for others. Perceived empowerment has a greater effect on perceived work attitudes such as job satisfaction and loyalty, and a lesser degree of influence on perceived behaviors like performance and service delivery. These observations suggest that perceiving oneself as empowered is positively linked to the emotional states of workers and their overall attachment to the work environment, but is not as strongly linked to service delivery and performance. Empowerment may contribute to an employee's job satisfaction, but not as profoundly shape work effort and performance. This is not surprising, since attitudes are not perfectly linked to behaviors (Schneider, 1988), and supervisory styles may confuse the degree to which empowerment is actively supported. Nevertheless, the importance of perceived empowerment in enhancing employee job satisfaction should not be ignored since the dissatisfied employee is more likely to provide poor service, leave, or be absent more frequently (Heskett et al., 1994).

Second, meaning is the strongest of the empowerment variables suggesting that when employees fund a fit between their values and the organization's goals they are more likely to be loyal, service oriented, concerned with others, and high performers. The values to goals fit is clearly more important than self-efficacy (i.e., their perception that they have the ability to perform the task well). The implication of this finding is that efforts to establish work goals that support employee values will most likely elicit positive employee involvement. Put simply, customer service and the work climate itself may improve when employees perform jobs they find meaningful. Permitting employees to perform jobs that they can master, but do not fit with their own values will not elicit the same degree of positive outcomes.

Perceiving yourself to have influence is also a critical factor in shaping job satisfaction. Liking the work and being able to influence what happens at work are critical. It is likely that self-efficacy (mastery), particularly in relatively routine, simple, and repetitive tasks, does not have the motivational potential that perceived meaning as well as influence over the work setting are likely to elicit. It may also be likely that self-efficacy is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for empowerment. This finding may not be true in other settings for which job tasks are more complex, but may be a critical factor for the future introduction of empowerment programs in service contexts. Since none of the clubs studied currently have empowerment programs, it is also likely that self-efficacy is more attainable or gets more attention than the other components of empowerment.

Finally, the exploration of differences revealed that part-time and fulltime workers differ in their perceptions of meaning and influence on the job. These findings are interesting in that they may reflect the way in which part-timers are treated. Given that the part-timers did not differ on mastery of their job, it is possible that they are treated differently and have less influence, but are as competent in performing the jobs. One implication of this finding is that attempts to develop empowerment programs might be directed toward giving part-timers a more developed sense of meaning and influence in their jobs to enhance satisfaction, loyalty, performance, service delivery, and concern for others. Empowerment programs may have the maximum impact if crafted around these two components in particular. In light of recent work in a food service context that showed full- and part-time workers to be equally committed and satisfied with work (Enz and Inman, 1992), efforts to empower this group of employees may be viable.

Position (front versus back-of-house) played no significant role in explaining levels of empowerment. This may be due in part to the overall absence of empowerment programs in the clubs studied. However, one implication of this finding is that efforts to empower may best be attempted on all versus a select subset of employees. Employees in high customer contact positions may not be the only or the best worker group to concentrate on when trying to engage in empowerment efforts. Back-of-house employees may also be well suited to empowerment efforts.

One of the strengths of this study is the design which permitted the examination of employees from a total of thirty different private clubs. Since the sample was drawn from multiple clubs and club effects were controlled, the degree to which the role of empowerment is a function of unique club characteristics is diminished. In addition, the fact that all of the clubs lacked empowerment programs helps to make them more corn parable. Hence, the generalizability of the findings to other clubs is great:. Nevertheless, the degree of generalizability to other service firms is less. Clearly, future studies would be advised to consider additional service organizations.

One limitation of the current exploratory study involved the sampling technique used. This study utilized a convenience sample. Only the clubs managed by those participating in the executive education program were studied. However, club effects were controlled for in the data analyses. Also, because the only thing the clubs had in common was the participation of their general managers in the executive education program, it was assumed that effects not controlled for would be randomly distributed and, therefore, not pose a problem. Another limitation to this study is the lack of multiple and faceted measures of the dependent variables. Future research would benefit by exploring various facets of satisfaction and performance versus the general measures used in this study. Finally, the results of this study may be distorted somewhat by the presence of common method variance. All of the variables measured were perceptions of the employees, which may inflate the reported relationships between the independent and dependent variables. Future studies should attempt to gather some of the pertinent variables from different sources (e.g., supervisor assessments of employee performance or customer assessments of service delivery). In spire of the limitations mentioned, the data offer an initial empirical examination on the effects of empowerment on service workers.


In conclusion, this study offers an encouraging word for the adoption of empowerment efforts and principles in developing operational practices for all service employees, whether contact with the customer is high or low and employment status is part-time or full-time. Efforts to facilitate meaning and influence over the work setting are critical. Nevertheless, too much emphasis on the ability of empowerment to improve performance or service delivery may result in unrealistic expectations for practice. While perceived empowerment does affect performance and service delivery, this study shows its greatest impact rests in how it positively influences employee job satisfaction, concern for other, and loyalty to the organization. This is not trivial given the proposed linkage between employee satisfaction and such things as customer loyalty and profitability (Heskett et al., 1994). While the direct connection between perceived empowerment and performance may be weaker than the speculative popular literature claims, the costs of dissatisfaction, poor citizenship, guest dissatisfaction, and reduced loyalty are very high. Hence, developing a sense of empowerment in employees may pay dividends in the short term by increasing employee job satisfaction and in the long term by increasing both guest and employee retention.


Ashforth, BY. 1989. "The Experience of Powerlessness in Organizations." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43: 207-242.

Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Block, P. 1993. Stewardship, Choosing Service Over Self-Interest San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bowen, D., and E. Lawler. 1992. "The Empowerment of Service Workers: What, Why, How, and When." Sloan Management Review (Spring): 31-39.

Brymer, R.A. 1991. "Employee Empowerment: A Guest-driven Leadership Strategy." The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 32 (May): 58-68.

Conger, JA., and RN. Kanungo. 1988. "The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice." Academy of Management Review 13: 471-482.

Deci, E.L. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum.

--and R.M. Ryan. 1985. "The Support of Autonomy and the Control of Behavior." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 1024-1037.

Enz C., and C. Inman. 1992. "A Comparison of Attitudes and Work Practices of Part-time and Full-time Workers in the Food Service Industry." Proceedings: Annual CHRIE Conference.

Greenberger, D.B., and S. Strasser. 1986. "Development and Application of a Model of Personal Control in Organizations." Academy of Management Review 11: 164-177.

Heskett, J.L., T.O. Jones, G.W. Loveman, W.E. Sasser, and L.A. Schlesinger. 1994. "Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work." Harvard Business Review 72(2): 164-174.

Mainiero, L.A. 1986. "Coping with Powerlessness: The Relationship of Gender and Job Dependency to Empowerment-strategy Usage." Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 633-653.

Pfeffer, J. 1994. Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Schneider, D.J. 1988. Introduction To Social Psychology. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Spreitzer, G.M. 1992. "When Organizations Dare: The Dynamics of Individual Empowerment in the Workplace." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Michigan.

Sternberg, L.E. 1992. "Empowerment: Trust vs. Control." The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 33 (February): 68-72.

Thomas, KW., and B.A. Velthouse. 1990. "Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An "Interpretive" Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation." Academy of Management Review 15: 666-681.

* The authors gratefully acknowledge the General Managers who permitted their clubs to be a part of this study. The authors also wish to acknowledge the assistance of Ajay Ghei during the data analysis stage of this project.

Mark D. Fulford

Assistant Professor of Service Sector Management

California State University-San Marcos

Cathy A. Enz

Associate Professor of Management

Cornell University

Characteristic                 n      %
  Female                      127   43.8
  Male                        163   56.2
Age (year) mean 35
  25 years are under           63   22.5
  26-30                        74   26.5
  31-00                        70   24.9
  41-50                        31   11.8
  Over 50                      37   14.3
Highest Degree
  Some high school             26    8.9
  High school graduate         98   33.8
  Some college or technical   121   41.4
  College graduate             38   12.8
  Graduate work                 6    2.1
  Graduate degree               3    1.0
Years with the club
  Less than 3                  97   34.6
  3a                           92   32.9
  6-10                         52   18.6
  11-20                        32   11.1
  More than 20                  8    3.1
    Dining Room/Bar                 31.4
    Catering                         3.4
    Recreation                      12.2
    Kitchen                         14.7
    Rooms                            4.8
    Maintenance/Grounds             20.2
    Administration                  15.4
  White                       199    7.6
  Black                        22    8.4
  Hispanic                     23    8.6
  Asian                         4    1.5
  Other                        14    5.3
Location of Club
  Northeast                    63   22.3
  Southeast                   114   40.4
  Midwest                      42   14.9
  South west                   58   20.6
  Northwest                     6    1.8


Items                   Meaning    Self-Efficacy   Influence
                        Factor I        II            III

My work is                 .83          .28           .10
Important to me

My jab activities          .83          .01           .28
are meaningful to

I care about what I        .80          .30           .17
do on my job

my job is well             .14          .62           .16
within my scope of
my activities

I am confident             .22          .82           .11
about my ability to
do my job

I have mastered            .14          .64           .01
the skills to do my

My opinion counts          .23         - .05
in work group
decision making

I have freedom In          .07          .19           .71
determining how to
do my job

I have a chance to         .30          .25           -63
use persona;
initiative in my work

I have influence           .19          .03           .80
over what happens
in my work group

I decide on how to        -.04          .46           .80
go about doing my

I have a great deal        .09          .03           .78
of control over my

Elgenvalues =             1.80         1.31          4.53

Percentage of            15.0%         1 .9%         37.8%


  Variable                        Means   Standard Deviations

Independent Variables
  Meaning *                        6.04            .99
  Self-Efficacy *                  6.31            .74
  Influence *                      5.44           1.09
Dependent Variables
  Satisfaction **                  3.60            .83
  Loyalty **                       4.54            .75
  Employee Performance (#)        90.63          17.00
  Level of Service Delivery (#)   89.45          19.96
  Concern for Others (#)          90.18          18.52

* Based on a scale from 1 to 7

** Based on a scale from 1 to 5

(#) Based on a scale from 0 to 100% where 100% is the best you can do.


                               Dependent Variables

                     Satisfaction    Loyalty    Performance

Empowerment            Beta           Beta          Beta
Meaning                .25 ***        .45 ***      .16 *
Sell-Efficacy         -.03            .29 ***      .04
Influence              .25           -.05          .12
Overall F            17.45 ***      49.38 ***     6.03
Adjusted [R.sup.2]     .15            .35          .05

                      Dependent Variables

                     Service    Concern for
                     Delivery     Others

Empowerment           Beta         Beta
Meaning                .16 *        .26 ***
Sell-Efficacy         -.01          .05
Influence              .04          .07
Overall F             2.93        10.18 ***
Adjusted [R.sup.2]     .02          .09

* [less than or equal to] .05

** [less than or equal to] .001

*** [less than or equal to] Dependent Variables
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 1995 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.