10 Strategic Points Quantitative Study, psychology homework help – HUMANITIES

Assignment: 10 Strategic Points Quantitative Study Extraction #3 In the prospectus, proposal, and dissertation there are 10 strategic points that need to be clear, simple, correct, and aligned to ensure the research is doable, valuable, and credible. These points, which provide a guide or vision for the research, are present in almost any research study. The ability to identify these points is one of the first skills required in the creation of a viable doctoral dissertation. In this assignment, you will identify and evaluate 10 strategic points in a published quantitative research study. General Requirements: Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment: Review the Wallace, Johnson, Mathe, and Paul article (ATTACHED). Locate and download Modified 10 Points Template. (ATTACHED) This assignment uses a rubric (ATTACHED). Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. APA style is required for this assignment. You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Directions: Using the Modified 10 Points Template, identify each of the 10 strategic points in this quantitative research study. Complete the Evaluation section of the template by addressing the following questions250-500 words) with regard to the 10 strategic points in the study: Discuss the key points in the literature review and how the author used this section to identify the gap or problem addressed in the study. Describe the variables under study and how they are a key component in this quantitative research study. You are not expected to understand the differences between variables at this point, but should be able to identify how they inform the problem, purpose, research questions and data collection instruments. Describe the problem and how it informed the research questions under study. Describe the quantitative design used and why it is appropriate for the identified problem and research questions. Support your response with a peer-reviewed citation from a research source. Assess the appropriateness of the instruments used to collect data and answer the research questions as well as to address the stated problem. Discuss how the problem statement informed the development of the purpose statement in this study.Week 4 – Modified 10 Strategic Points Template
RES-850 Modified 10 Strategic Points Template
10 Strategic Points Quantitative Study Extraction #3
Article
Citation
Point
Broad Topic
Area
Lit Review
Problem
Statement
Research
Questions
Sample
Describe
Phenomena
(qualitative) or
Define
Variables/
Hypotheses
(quantitative)
Methodology &
Design
Purpose
Statement
Data Collection
Approach
Data Analysis
Approach
Evaluation (Maximum 250-500 words)
Description
Location
(Page #)
Week 4 – Modified 10 Strategic Points Template
RES-850 Modified 10 Strategic Points Template
10 Strategic Points Quantitative Study Extraction #3
Article
Citation
Point
Broad Topic
Area
Lit Review
Problem
Statement
Research
Questions
Sample
Describe
Phenomena
(qualitative) or
Define
Variables/
Hypotheses
(quantitative)
Methodology &
Design
Purpose
Statement
Data Collection
Approach
Data Analysis
Approach
Evaluation (Maximum 250-500 words)
Description
Location
(Page #)
WeeK 4 – read – Wallace, et al., (2011)
Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and psychological
empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt accountability: A
managerial perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 840-850.
doi:10.1037/a0022227
https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pd
h&AN=2011-04648-001&site=eds-live&scope=site
Abstract:
The authors proposed and tested a model in which data were collected from managers (n = 539) at 116
corporate-owned quick service restaurants to assess the structural and psychological empowerment process as
moderated by shared-felt accountability on indices of performance from a managerial perspective. The authors
found that empowering leadership climate positively relates to psychological empowerment climate. In turn,
psychological empowerment climate relates to performance only under conditions of high-felt accountability; it
does not relate to performance under conditions of low-felt accountability. Overall, the present results indicate
that the quick-service restaurant managers, who feel more empowered, operate restaurants that perform better
than managers who feel less empowered, but only when those empowered managers also feel a high sense of
accountability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)
The organizational empowerment literature differentiates empowerment as either structural or psychological in
form (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005; Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006; Spreitzer, 1995). With strong roots
in the work design literature (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001), structural
empowerment refers to the delegation of authority and responsibility to employees (e.g., leadership; Leach,
Wall, & Jackson, 2003; Mathieu et al., 2006) and has been linked empirically with constructs of interest across
multiple levels of analysis (e.g., G. Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph,
2004). Psychological empowerment is characterized as a four-dimensional psychological state consisting of (a)
meaningfulness, (b) competence, (c) self-determination, and (d) impact (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer,
1995, 1996). Unlike structural empowerment, psychological empowerment uses social information processing
as the theoretical underpinning. As a result, psychological empowerment has been shown to transform
individual behaviors above and beyond the capabilities of structural empowerment alone (e.g., peer helping,
supportive relationships; Corsun & Enz, 1999; Parker et al., 2001). To date, however, no research has examined
the collective construct of psychological empowerment (i.e., aggregated composite of meaningfulness,
competence, self-determination, and impact)—what we term psychological empowerment climate—and how
such a construct might operate in organizational contexts.
Existing research has demonstrated the positive aspects of empowerment, but what if empowered employees do
not feel accountable, how might this condition influence subsequent performance? This rather practical question
has far-reaching implications as performance may suffer if employees misuse their sense of empowerment.
Accountability facilitates order in the workplace by creating awareness of answerable tasks, methods for task
achievement, as well as clarifying evaluation methods and agents (Breaux, Munyon, Hochwater, & Ferris,
2009). Hence, accountability appears to be a critical boundary condition in the empowerment process:
Employees are empowered and maintain engagement in their jobs due to higher levels of felt accountability.
Testing this boundary condition is the primary objective of the present research. Overall, we examined in the
present study the extent to which shared managerial perceptions of psychological empowerment are related to
indices of effectiveness beyond empowering leadership, while also demonstrating the importance of
accountability as a moderator of this relationship (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Theoretical model of
hypothesized relationships.
Empowering Leadership and Psychological Empowerment Climate
Climates are collective constructs (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999) in which ambient stimuli serve as a source of
information that signal the appropriateness of member behaviors (Hackman, 1992). According to Morgeson and
Hofmann (1999), “any given collective can be viewed as a series of ongoing, events, and event cycles between
the component parts (e.g., individuals)” (p. 252). These event cycles within a given collective form a unique
foundation for the emergence of the collective construct, which in turn leads to persistence of the collective
construct that ultimately shapes collective action via social information processing (Morgeson & Hofmann,
1999). Barker (1993) provides evidence to support this chain of events for customer service in that a newly
codified and strengthened norm for service significantly related to service behavior among the collectives
members. This notion that collective constructs “emerge from interaction and can, over time, come to influence
systems of interaction” (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999, p. 262) is the basis for the influence of climate in
organizations.
Previous research has supported relationships between climate and performance for various climate types (e.g.,
service, safety; Patterson, Warr, & West, 2004; Zohar, 2000, 2002). With regard to empowerment, Seibert et al.
(2004) found that a leadership-based empowerment climate directly and positively related to group
performance, whereas individual psychological empowerment mediated its cross-level relationship with
individual performance. Other researchers have found positive relationships between leadership-based
empowerment climate and task performance (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009), whereas others have shown that
employees resistance to empowerment climate (i.e., rejecting empowerment) negatively relates to performance
(Maynard, Mathieu, Marsh, & Ruddy, 2007). Although there is evidence that leadership-based empowerment
climate relates to important organizational outcomes, research has yet to explicate fully the theoretical and
empirical role that shared psychological empowerment climate might play in this process.
Empowerment is isomorphic (G. Chen et al., 2007; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, 1996) in that it retains
the same meaning and function across levels of analysis (i.e., individual, group; G. Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu,
2005; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). James and colleagues (2008) stated, “Shared perceptual agreement at the
individual level of analysis in climate research provides the meaning of the construct at a higher level of
analysis” (p. 17). Integrating this notion of shared psychological constructs with the isomorphic nature of the
psychological framework of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995), we conceptualize psychological empowerment
climate as shared psychological perceptions of empowerment related to meaningfulness, competence, selfdetermination, and impact. Though we operationalize this construct as psychological empowerment climate as
experienced by managers (our sample consists of managers), we refer to the construct as psychological
empowerment climate in the present article.
Psychological empowerment climate is distinct from team empowerment and empowering leadership (or
structural empowerment). Team empowerment has been defined as “team members collective belief that they
have the authority to control their proximal work environment and are responsible for their teams functioning”
(Mathieu et al., 2006, p. 98). Although the team empowerment construct is important to study in teams, it may
not adequately capture the shared psychological perceptions of empowerment in more loosely organized
collectives, which are common in organizations. This is a particularly salient point in the present study, as our
sample does not include organizationally structured teams; rather, it is composed of managers in a given
location. Because team empowerment limits itself to teams, we focused on psychological empowerment climate
as a broader conceptualization using managerial collectives in a given location (i.e., restaurant).
Seibert et al. (2004) defined empowerment climate as “employees shared perceptions of managerial structures,
policies, and practices related to empowerment” (p. 333). This operationalization and measurement of
empowerment climate does not capture the shared psychological aspects of empowerment that psychological
climates purport to capture (i.e., feeling empowered; James et al., 2008); rather, it captures structural aspects of
empowerment stemming from organizational leadership (Seibert et al., 2004, p. 338). G. Chen et al. (2007)
suggested that the notion of empowerment climate as presented by Seibert et al. (2004) is highly consistent with
Kirkman and Rosens (1999)empowering leadership behaviors, which depicts the structural component of
empowerment. In fact, G. Chen et al. (2007) integrated Kirkman and Rosens (1999) and Seibert et al.s (2004)
work and used the term “empowering leadership climate” in their study (p. 333). Seibert et al. (2004) also
demonstrated via factor analysis that empowering leadership climate is distinct from psychological
empowerment. Thus, empowering leadership climate and psychological empowerment climate are theoretically
and empirically distinct from each other, with the former measuring structural empowerment and the latter
measuring psychological empowerment. Despite being distinct constructs, empowering leadership is a likely
antecedent to psychological empowerment climate (cf. Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
Theory and research (e.g., Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; G. Chen et al., 2007; Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003;
Zohar, 2000, 2002; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008) demonstrate that leadership is antecedent to climate, which has
been explained via engagement in the social learning process wherein unit members observe, interact, and
codify norms on the basis of leader behavior that develops into a common understanding of that behavior (i.e.,
climate for something; Dragoni, 2005; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). In a similar
fashion, psychological empowerment climate likely develops from empowering leadership (Menon, 2001) by
providing the necessary conditions for feeling empowered. The empowering leader implements policies,
practices, and procedures with the objective of empowering collective members, which results in members
sharing a perception of being empowered (in our case, store and assistant managers in a given restaurant). This
relationship is due to the leader (a) assisting members to understand their work, thereby enhancing the
meaningfulness of work, (b) expressing confidence in members ability to complete tasks, (c) providing
autonomy by encouraging members to decide how to carry out work, and (d) encouraging members to
participate in decision making (Manz & Sims, 1987; Sims & Manz, 1994; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). As such,
shared perceptions of psychological empowerment are partially driven by unit leaders and partially result from a
social learning process among unit members. In this process, ambient stimuli, social cues, and explicit
information generate shared feelings of psychological empowerment, which strengthens over repeated cycles of
interaction. This relationship has been found at the individual level (Zhang & Bartol, 2010) and crossing
hierarchical levels (Z. Chen, Lam, & Zhong, 2007; Seibert et al., 2004), but it has not been examined from a
managerial perspective. This relationship also constitutes an important piece of our model. Hence, our first
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Empowering leadership climate positively relates to psychological empowerment climate.
Psychological Empowerment Climate and Performance
Psychological empowerment climate fosters empowerment-related behaviors and outcomes via social learning.
Social learning theory proposes that individuals model their own behavior through observation of salient
environmental stimuli, particularly the behavior of others such as leaders and colleagues (Bandura, 1986). In
this case, psychological empowerment climate acts as a source of salient stimuli, which is interpreted and
integrated into the behavioral system of collective members (i.e., managers for the present study). Thus, as
managers identify social cues about desired behaviors and norms, they learn about the psychological
empowerment climate encompassing meaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact. Managers in
highly empowered units possess a common understanding of competence, the ability to determine appropriate
work methods, and the significance of their work. As a result, managers share similar behavioral strategies as
each manager learns and models behavior after one another, including increased motivation to engage in their
work (Lawler, 1996). Thus, an increase in psychological empowerment climate and the subsequent decrease in
behavioral variability among managers in a given collective results in more cognitive, physical, and
socioemotional resources for managers to apply toward work tasks as they are not expending resources on
understanding their environment (cf. Dragoni, 2005; Hochwarter, Witt, Treadway, & Ferris, 2006).
Given this social learning process, it is probable that psychological empowerment climate can be broadened and
strengthened within managerial collectives via repeated interactions (Dragoni, 2005; Fredrickson & Losada,
2005). When shared perceptions of empowerment are high, the continued interactions among managers produce
a positive spiral generating additional empowerment perceptions (cf. Feldman, 2004). Such increases in
meaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact (i.e., psychological empowerment climate) should
increase performance due to the role of psychological empowerment as an enabling process that allows
managers to increase task engagement and persistence. Therefore, we contend that shared managerial
perceptions of psychological empowerment climate positively relate to performance, of which service and sales
are two key indices in the present sample.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Psychological empowerment climate positively relates to sales (H2a) and service (H2b).
Shared Felt Accountability as a Moderator
Accountability is defined as “an implicit or explicit expectation that ones decisions or actions will be subject to
evaluation by some salient audience(s) with the belief that there exists the potential for one to receive either
rewards or sanctions based on the expected evaluation” (Hall et al., 2003, p. 33). Accountability is most often
conceptualized and studied as a perceptual state (i.e., felt accountability) rather than an objective condition
(Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Hochwarter et al., 2007; Tetlock, 1985). Research suggests that accountability relates
to a number of important organizational constructs, such as motivation (Enzle & Anderson, 1993) and job
performance (Hochwarter et al., 2007; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989).
Gelfand, Lim, and Raver (2004) proposed the perceptual state of accountability as a multilevel phenomenon of
which there are two forms: structural alignment and web alignment. Structural alignment exists when
organizational members perceive formal organizational policies, rules, and procedures in the same fashion. Web
alignment is the extent to which individuals share a common understanding of informal behavioral expectations,
specific to a given collective, thereby different from formal policies, rules, and procedures (cf. Bowen &
Ostroff, 2004; Zohar, 2000). Of particular interest to the present study is Gelfand et al.s (2004)
conceptualization of within-collective web alignment (i.e., members perceive similar accountability norms).
Building on the notion of within-unit accountability alignment (Gelfand et al., 2004) and the definition of
accountability provided by Hall et al. (2003), we conceptualized shared felt accountability as a collective
expectation in which decisions and behaviors are subject to evaluation and justification by a salient
organizational agent(s). As with psychological empowerment climate, the interactions between and among
restaurant managers not only give rise to but also strengthen the collective accountability among managers via
repeated cycles of interaction and influence. Through mutual influence, managers codify accountability norms
by acting on heightened perceptions of felt accountability. As such, accountability is isomorphic across levels of
analysis (cf. Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
Shared felt accountability differs from the notion of “responsibility and accountability” presented by Seibert et
al. (2004) as a component of empowering leadership climate. Seibert et al. (2004) define accountability as “the
perception that teams are the locus of decision-making authority [responsibility] and performance accountability
in organizations” (p. 333). This definition of accountability is more structural in nature as it describes the
delegation of authority and responsibility. This does not accurately capture shared felt accountability, but rather
captures whether managers have been charged with the duty and obligation to monitor their own behavior. For
example, Seibert et al. (2004) measured the extent to which members perceive they are responsible for their
own accountability (e.g., “We use teams as the focal point of responsibility and accountability in our
organization,” p. 338). Due to these discrepancies, four issues limit us from adopting Seibert et al.s (2004)
conceptualization of responsibility and accountability. First, we do not focus on teams. Second, Seibert et al.
(2004) combined responsibility and accountability into the same dimension, despite the conceptual distinction
between the two (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Hall et al., 2006). Third, the conceptualization and measure used by
Siebert et al. (2004) does not measure shared felt accountability. Fourth, and perhaps most important,
accountability is not a theoretical component in psychological empowerment (Spretizer, 1995). Accordingly, we
believe that the present research more accurately conceptualizes shared felt accountability.
According to Hall et al. (2003), accountability facilitates organizational order by creating awareness of task
responsibilities and acceptable methods for task achievement as well as by identifying the relevant evaluative
organizational agent(s) (see also Breaux et al., 2009). Accountability creates a behavioral boundary that guides
and directs resources toward a specified set of objectives for behavior and performance (Hall et al., 2006).
Given that within-unit accountability is a shared perception that exists within collectives (Gelfand et al., 2004)
and that accountability also provides members with clear expectancies for resource utilization (Hall et al., 2003,
2006), it is likely that accountability helps channel resources toward achieving expected outcomes. Therefore,
we proposed shared felt accountability as a moderator of the psychological empowerment climate and
performance relationship because although felt accountability accentuates the positive aspects of a
psychological empowerment climate, it does not lead to them.
When shared felt accountability is high, managers are likely more familiar with evaluative standards for
decisions and behaviors, thereby reducing confusion, conflict, and anxiety leading to enhanced performance
(Davis, Mero, & Goodman, 2007; Fandt, 1991; Mero, Guidice, & Brownlee, 2007). Low shared felt
accountability likely leads to increased confusion, conflict, and anxiety among managers in a given collective
due to a lack of normative evaluation standards (Gelfand et al., 2004), which negatively relates to performance.
Shared felt accountability serves as a behavioral check on the appropriate application of effort and resources.
Thus, in a situation in which accountability is low but empowerment is high, empowered managers fail to
answer the question: What are we empowered to do? because standards for decisions and behaviors are
insufficient. However, when both accountability and psychological empowerment climate are high, managers
have clear behavioral standards to guide the application of their resources. For example, Hall et al. (2003) found
that the combination of high autonomy and high accountability resulted in decreased job tension and emotional
exhaustion, while leading to higher job satisfaction. Thus, shared felt accountability provides guidance to highly
empowered managers as to how their work will be evaluated, thus establishing behavioral expectations.
Therefore, we propose that shared felt accountability serves as a boundary condition moderating the relationship
between psychological empowerment climate and performance:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Shared felt accountability moderates the psychological empowerment climate–sales (H3a)
and service (H3b) relationship such that under high accountability, there will be a more positive relationship,
whereas there will be a less positive relationship when accountability is low.
Moderation and Mediation
Building on the hypotheses presented above (Hypotheses 1–3), we expect to find support for a mediated model
in which psychological empowerment climate mediates the empowering leadership climate to performance
relationship. Furthermore, we also expect felt accountability to moderate this mediated relationship. In essence,
we propose that shared felt accountability moderates the mediation effect of psychological empowerment
climate on the empowering leadership–performance relationship.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Shared felt accountability moderates the mediated relationship between empowering
leadership climate and sales (H4a) and service (H4b) via psychological empowerment climate such that when
accountability is high, the conditional indirect effect of empowering leadership climate on sales and service is
more positive, whereas the conditional indirect effect of empowering leadership on sales and service is less
positive when accountability is low.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The participants for this study were assistant and store managers of 116 corporate-owned quick service
restaurants in the United States. Restaurants was operationalized as the collective grouping mechanism for
managers in which each restaurant contained a store manager and several assistant managers. Managers were
surveyed over three time periods via an e-mail sent from the corporate office once a month for a period of 3
consecutive months. Of the total 649 stores in the organization, managers from 430 stores responded (response
rate of 66\%). For the second round, individuals responding from the initial 430 stores were surveyed, yielding
responses from managers of 236 stores (54\% response rate). The third and final round yielded responses from
members in 159 stores participating from the previous rounds (67\% response rate). Of the 159 stores in which
managers responded over all three periods, 116 stores had complete and usable data and were composed of 539
managers (assistant and store) with at least two assistant managers and one store manager responding from each
store. Over the three time periods, the usable overall response rate for assistant and store managers was 24.1\%
(total potential manager sample was 2,235). The average number of manager responses for each restaurant was
4.7 (range = 3–7). During the first phase of data collection, all managers were asked to complete measures on
control variables, whereas only assistant managers completed the empowering leadership measure using the
store manager as a referent. Approximately 1 month later at Time 2, assistant managers completed the
psychological empowerment climate scale, and then 1 month following this data collection, all managers
completed the accountability scale (Time 3). The participating organization provided store sales numbers for the
2008 fiscal year and mystery customer service shopping scores for the following quarter (3 months later). The
final sample was composed of 58.7\% females (SD = 0.48), with 38\% of the sample between the ages of 21 and
25, 36\% between the ages of 26 and 34, and 26\% were older than 34.
Measures
Empowering leadership climate
Empowering leadership climate was measured with the 17-item scale developed by Ahearne et al. (2005). The
scale includes four different areas including participation in decision making (five items; example item, “My
store manager makes many decisions together with me”), meaningfulness of work (four items; example item,
“My store manager helps me understand how my objectives and goals relate to that of the company”),
confidence in high performance (three items; example item, “My store manager believes that I can handle
demanding tasks”), and autonomy from bureaucratic constraints (five items; example item, “My store manager
makes it more efficient for me to do my job by keeping the rules and regulations simple”). The measure uses a
7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The assistant managers for
each store evaluated the respective store manager in regard to his or her empowering leadership behavior.
Psychological empowerment climate
Using only assistant managers, psychological empowerment climate was assessed with Spreitzers (1995 12,
1996) 12-item measure. This four-dimensional instrument measures the psychological aspects of empowerment
regarding meaning (e.g., “The work I do is very important to me within my store”), competence (e.g., “I am
confident about my ability to do my job in my store”), self-determination (e.g., “I have significant autonomy in
my store in determining how I do my job”), and impact (e.g., “My impact on what happens in my store is
large”). The measure uses a 7-point Likert-type scale rangng from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly
agree). The referent was left as the self (i.e., aggregation via direct consensus) due to the isomorphic nature of
psychological empowerment. James et al. (2008) and Chan (1998) discussed that the direct consensus model of
aggregation is adequate to capture the notion of a shared psychological climate given that there is sufficient
empirical justification for aggregation (e.g., rwg > .70), which is reported in the Results section.
Accountability
The accountability measure, developed by Hochwarter, Kacmar, and Ferris (2003), is composed of eight items
assessing managers felt accountability at work (Hochwarter, Perrewe, Hall, & Ferris, 2005). This measure uses
a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Example items include “I
am held very accountable for my actions in my store” and “I often have to explain why I do certain things at
work.” Both assistant and store managers completed this measure.
Performance
Store sales revenues for the 2008 fiscal year as well as aggregated customer service perceptions for restaurants
were obtained. The customers who evaluated the store service performance were hired from a national thirdparty mystery shopping organization. Dimensions on which service was rated include employee appearance,
order taking, friendliness, accuracy, and promptness of food arrival. Items evaluating restaurant service are
rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The organization provided the mean of the five
service dimensions.
Controls
Organization tenure and gender were controlled for, as research has shown that each is related to service
performance (Ployhart, Wiechmann, Schmitt, Sacco, & Rogg, 2003). Store age in years was also controlled for,
as it might relate to sales beyond the control of managers. Using this method might allow us to partial out some
store specific revenues (Kacmar, Andrews, Rooy, Steilberg, & Cerrone, 2006). Perceptions of organizational
resources (i.e., work design features that help employees achieve goals and reduce job demands; Salanova,
Agut, & Peiró, 2005, p. 1218) were controlled for in order to determine whether the focal variables capture
unique variance in the present outcomes beyond perceived organizational resources. The scale used for this
control variable consists of 11 items along three dimensions: organizational training, job autonomy, and
technology using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
Results
Given the potential overlap among our primary variables, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to assess
divergent validity. We found that a four-factor model (empowerment climate, empowering leadership,
accountability, and organizational resources) fit the data well, χ2(1169, N =) = 1726.32, p < .05, confirmatory fit index (CFI) = .97, root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA) = .06, standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) = .04. Additionally, all correlations among the four factors were less than .35. Next, we assessed the viability of data aggregation following the recommendations of Bliese (2000): sufficient withinunit homogeneity, between-unit heterogeneity, and the naturally occurring nature of the unit of analysis, which is the case in the present study. We used the rwg(j) statistic and interclass correlation(1) (ICC[1]) to assess within-unit homogeneity and ICC(2) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess between-unit homogeneity. As shown in Table 1, aggregation indices are supportive of aggregating our data. Next, we examined descriptive statistics for our main effect hypotheses (H1: empowering leadership climate and psychological empowerment climate; H2: psychological empowerment climate and performance indices). As shown in Table 2, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were both supported. Also, we examined the relationship between empowering leadership climate (distal predictor) and store performance as a first step in establishing mediation. We found that empowering leadership climate positively relates to sales and service, which initially supports the first step in mediation. We assessed Hypotheses 3 and 4 using multiple moderated regression and tests of conditional indirect effects. Aggregation Indices for Variables Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for all Variables Prior to analyzing the full model, all predictors were mean centered (Aiken & West, 1991). In the model, we first entered our control variables as well as empowering leadership climate in predicting sales (see Table 3) and service (see Table 4). Although empowering leadership climate did not significantly predict either, we moved forward with our models to assess indirect effects. Second, we used the same predictor variables with psychological empowerment climate (the mediator) as the outcome. Empowering leadership climate was a significant predictor (β = .25, p < .05) of psychological empowerment climate. Third, psychological empowerment climate was shown to be a significant predictor of both sales (β = .21, p < .05) and service (β = .31, p < .05). Next, we controlled for accountability and the fifth model controlled for interactions among our control variables. Accountability was a significant predictor of sales (β = .26, p < .05) and service (β = .26, p < .05), yet no significant control interactions were found. In the last step, we found that our focal interaction between psychological empowerment climate and shared felt accountability was significant for sales (β = .36, p < .05) and service (β = .26, p < .05). As shown in Figures 2 and 3, low accountability made little difference in performance regardless of psychological empowerment climate level. Conversely, in stores with high accountability, psychological empowerment climate positively related to both sales and service performance. Tests of simple slopes supported this pattern such that with high accountability, psychological empowerment climate significantly related to sales (β = .40, p < .05) and service (β = .31 p < .05), but not when accountability was low (β = −.21, p > .05; β = −.17, p > .05). Our results partially support Hypothesis 3 in that there were
significant relationships between psychological empowerment climate and sales and service when
accountability was high, but not when accountability was low.
Results of Moderated-Mediated Regression of Store Sales Performance on Empowering Leadership Climate,
Psychological Empowerment Climate, and Felt Accountability
Results of Moderated-Mediated Regression of Store Service Performance on Empowering Leadership Climate,
Psychological Empowerment Climate, and Felt Accountability
Figure 2. Interaction of psychological empowerment
climate and shared felt accountability on store sales. High shared felt accountability and psychological
empowerment climate are +1 SD, and low shared felt accountability and psychological empowerment climate
are –1 SD. PEC = psychological empowerment climate; SFA = shared felt accountability. Both PEC and SFA
are collective managerial perceptions.
Figure 3. Interaction of psychological empowerment
climate and shared felt accountability on store service performance. High shared felt accountability and
psychological empowerment climate are +1 SD, and low shared felt accountability and psychological
empowerment climate are –1 SD. PEC = psychological empowerment climate; SFA = shared felt
accountability. Both PEC and SFA are collective managerial perceptions.
Although it is the most common method for testing mediated models, researchers have pointed out
shortcomings of the Baron and Kenny (1986) approach and recommend reporting estimates of the size of the
indirect effect and statistical significance tests (e.g., MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002;
Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) method also allow for testing moderatedmediation in conjunction with indirect effects via bootstrapping. Hence, to further assess the proposed
moderated-mediated effects, we tested for conditional indirect effects following the Preacher et al. (2007)
method. An assumption of statistical significance tests is that the data are normally distributed. However,
indirect effects are likely skewed so the assumption of normality is often untenable. Thus, we derived estimates
of the indirect effects, their standard errors, and the bias-corrected and accelerated 95\% confidence intervals
around the effects using a bootstrapping method with replacement following the guidelines of Preacher et al.
(2007; see also Footnote 1). Previous work has used this approach (e.g., Edwards & Arthur, 2007; Wallace,
Edwards, Shull, & Finch, 2009), and research demonstrates that bootstrap methods are more powerful than
traditional tests of mediation (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). We estimated 1,000 bootstrap samples in which the
independent variable was empowering leadership, the mediator was psychological empowerment climate, the
moderator was shared felt accountability, and the dependent variables were sales and service. In short, this
method examines the magnitude of the conditional indirect effects of empowering leadership on store sales and
service through psychological empowerment climate across both low and high levels of accountability using
bootstrapping. The results shown in Table 5 demonstrate that when accountability is low, the indirect effects of
empowering leadership climate on sales and service were nonsignificant. However, when accountability is high,
there is a significant and positive indirect effect of empowering leadership climate via psychological
empowerment climate on store sales (conditional indirect effect = .14, 95\% CI = 0.04, 0.21) and store service
(conditional indirect effect = .17, 95\% CI = 0.07, 0.24).
Conditional Indirect Effects of Empowering Leadership Climate on Store Performance Indices via
Psychological Empowerment Climate × Felt Accountability
Discussion
The purpose of this research was twofold. The first was to theoretically describe and empirically test a form of
psychological empowerment climate, integrating it with empowering leadership climate. The second, and
perhaps the more pressing objective of this research, was to examine shared felt accountability as a boundary
condition in the empowerment process from a managerial perspective. We discovered positive relationships
between empowering leadership climate, psychological empowerment climate, and two indices of performance.
We also demonstrated that shared felt accountability significantly moderated this process. Although the present
research makes important contributions to the literature on empowerment, perhaps the more interesting
contribution is the moderating role of accountability. Managerial accountability is essential to store success, so
much so that in the absence of accountability, empowerment does not provide positive benefits. Our findings
indicate that positive benefits from empowerment (structural, via empowering leadership climate and
psychological, via psychological empowerment climate) only accrue in the presence of high shared felt
accountability. Theoretically, this study extends previous empowerment research by delineating empowerment
climate from a shared psychological perspective, distinguishing it from team empowerment and empowering
leadership, integrating it with empowering leadership, and by supporting accountability as a boundary
condition. Hence, empowerment climate appears to be quite meaningful as a shared psychological perception
beyond the structural component of empowering leadership alone.
Although we were interested in a rather practical question: What happens if managers are empowered but not
held accountable? we have identified important implications stemming from the integration of shared felt
accountability with psychological empowerment climate. First, future research on psychological empowerment
should include accountability to ascertain its relevance across contexts and across organizational levels to
increase generalizability. Second, our results indicate that an organization should implement procedures to
develop mutual felt accountability of restaurant managers in an effort to optimize effectiveness. Otherwise,
individuals who do not feel accountable may take advantage of their empowerment resulting in potential
adverse consequences. Future research should address the possibility of these consequences, such as
counterproductive work behaviors. Our results also suggest that accountability should also be considered in a
more positive frame, as prior research positions accountability as a stressor (Ferris, Mitchell, Canavan, Frink, &
Hopper, 1995). However, research suggests that stressors can engender either a hindrance view or a challenge
view, with challenge stressors leading to improved performance (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). It is the
responsibility of the unit manager to remove hindrances (e.g., red tape) and provide support for employees to
meet challenges (Wallace, Edwards, Arnold, Frazier, & Finch, 2009). The importance of these findings is
especially salient to service organizations, as customer perceptions are often created with limited interaction
(Susskind, Kacmar, & Borchgrevink, 2003). This makes each employee–customer interaction vitally important
in service exchanges. Because of the unique situation inherent in service work, organizations should attempt to
foster an empowering environment by using an integrated approach to empowerment such as the one
documented herein.
As with any study, there are limitations of the present research. First, limited interactions with multiple
customers and unique employment patterns underlying our sample may not be normal for other industries,
thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings. Similarly, the source of data was a single organization and
from the managers perspective, further limiting the applicability of our findings to other contexts. A critical
next step to further validate our findings would be to include frontline employees with managers to better
capture the “total” empowerment climate. Including all unit members to assess empowerment climate would
broaden and enrich this fertile research area. Further fruitful research might examine differences in perceptions
of empowerment climate across managers and employees and how such differences relate to performance
indicators (McKay, Avery, & Morris, 2009).
Future research should also consider applying a longitudinal design in the study of psychological empowerment
to increase the internal validity of the relationships tested in the present study. A longitudinal design could
further explicate the causal link between psychological empowerment climate and performance outcomes.
Additionally, future work could examine resource allocation strategies that might further explain the
relationship between psychological empowerment climate and performance. Another extension of the present
study would be to obtain additional performance ratings from an organizational leader in touch with restaurant
managers. Although the use of store sales and third-party customer service evaluations provide relevant insight
into unit performance, supervisor evaluations could triangulate the phenomenon of interest with existing data
(i.e., objective sales, external ratings, internal ratings). Furthermore, formal policies and practices implemented
by organizations to increase shared felt accountability (i.e., structural alignment; Gelfand et al., 2004) should
also be considered in empowerment research as well as the potential negative effects of too much
accountability. In fact, post hoc we examined this potential. We did not find evidence to support a curvilinear
relationship such that the positive relationship we found might actually become negative with additional
increases in accountability. This could be due to our sample, and follow-up interviews with managers suggested
that they do not feel extreme levels of accountability. However, results of these interviews did suggest that
extreme levels of accountability might hurt their performance. We encourage future research to investigate
these extensions and hope the present research stimulates future development on empowerment and
accountability.
Footnotes
1
Preacher et al.s (2007) study also contains multiple models for testing moderated-mediation. We used Model
3. We also used Preacher et al.s macro, and the complete reference for the macro is provided in the References
list. Finally, the macro provides confidence interval options for percentile and biased methods—results with
these options supported the same pattern of significance.
References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical
examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945–955. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437. doi:10.2307/2393374
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data
aggregation and analysis. In K. J.Klein & S. W. J.Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength”
of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221. doi:10.2307/20159029
Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Politics as a moderator of the
accountability–job satisfaction relationship: Evidence across three studies. Journal of Management, 35, 307–
326. doi:10.1177/0149206308318621
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relationships among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of
analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. doi:10.1037/00219010.83.2.234
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for
delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 375–409.
doi:10.1177/1094428105280056
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership,
empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331–346. doi:10.1037/00219010.92.2.331
Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at
individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 202–212. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.202
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy
of Management Review, 13, 471–482. doi:10.2307/258093
Corsun, D. L., & Enz, C. A. (1999). Predicting psychological empowerment among service workers: The effect
of support-based relationships. Human Relations, 52, 205–224. doi:10.1177/001872679905200202
Davis, W., Mero, N., & Goodman, J. (2007). The interactive effects of goal orientation and accountability on
task performance. Human Performance, 20, 1–21. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup2001_1
Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational work groups: The
role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1084–1095.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1084
Edwards, B. D., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2007). An examination of factors contributing to a reduction in race-based
subgroup differences on a constructed response paper-and-pencil test of scholastic achievement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 794–801. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.794
Enzle, M. E., & Anderson, S. C. (1993). Surveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64, 257–266. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.257
Fandt, P. (1991). The relationship of accountability and interdependent behavior to enhancing team
consequences. Group and Organization Studies, 16, 300–312. doi:10.1177/105960119101600305
Feldman, M. A. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization Science, 15,
295–309. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0073
Ferris, G. R., Mitchell, T. R., Canavan, P. J., Frink, D. D., & Hopper, H. (1995). Accountability in human
resource systems. In G. R.Ferris, S. D.Rosen, & D. T.Barnum, (Eds.), Handbook of human resource
management (pp. 175–196). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing.
American Psychologist, 60, 678–686. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource
management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16, 1–51.
Gelfand, M. J., Lim, B.-C., & Raver, J. L. (2004). Culture and accountability in organizations: Variations in
forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 135.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.02.007
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D.Dunnette & L. M.Hough
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 199–267). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 16, 250–279. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. (2003).
Accountability in human resources management. In C. A.Schriesheim & L.Neider (Eds.), New directions in
human resource management (pp. 29–63). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hall, A. T., Royle, M. T., Brymer, R. A., Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2006).
Relationships between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: The neutralizing role of autonomy
across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 87–99. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.87
Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Gavin, M. B., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Frink, D. D. (2007). Political skill
as neutralizer of felt accountability–job tension effects on job performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 226–239. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.003
Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, C., & Ferris, G. (2003, April). Accountability at work: An examination of antecedents
and consequences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Negative affectivity as a moderator of
the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 517–534. doi:10.1002/job.324
Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). The interaction of social skill and
organizational support on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 482–489. doi:10.1037/00219010.91.2.482
James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C.-H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., & Kim, K.-I. (2008).
Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work &
Organizational Psychology, 17, 5–32. doi:10.1080/13594320701662550
Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Rooy, D. L., Steilberg, R. C., & Cerrone, S. (2006). Sure, everyone can be
replaced… but at what cost? Turnover as a predictor of unit-level performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 49, 133–144.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74. doi:10.2307/256874
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E. (1996). From the ground up: Six principles for building the new logic corporation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An empirical
test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 76, 27–
52. doi:10.1348/096317903321208871
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressorhindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764–775.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of
methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of selfmanaging work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–129. doi:10.2307/2392745
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test
of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 97–108. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.97
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Marsh, W. M., & Ruddy, T. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the
influences of employees resistance to empowerment. Human Performance, 20, 147–171.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2009). A tale of two climates: Diversity climate from
subordinates and managers perspectives and their role in store unit sales performance. Personnel Psychology,
62, 767–791. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01157.x
Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 50, 153–180. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00052
Mero, N. M., Guidice, R. M., & Brownlee, A. L. (2007). Accountability in a performance appraisal context:
The effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management, 33,
223–252. doi:10.1177/0149206306297633
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for
multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249–265.
doi:10.2307/259081
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In W. C.Borman, D.
R.Ilgen, & R. J.Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12,
pp. 565–593). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an
elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413–440.
doi:10.1348/096317901167460
Patterson, M., Warr, P., & West, M. (2004). Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of
employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 193–216.
doi:10.1348/096317904774202144
Ployhart, R. E., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J. M., & Rogg, K. (2003). The cross-cultural equivalence
of job performance ratings. Human Performance, 16, 49–79. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1601_3
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory,
methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. (Macro available from
http://www.people.ku.edu/~preacher/)
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to
employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 1217–1227.
Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1989). Self-identification and accountability. In Giacalone, R. A.,
Rosenfeld, P (Eds.). Impression management in the organization (pp. 21–43). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level
model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332–349.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures
and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
Sims, H. P., & Manz, C. C. (1994). The leadership of self-managing teams. In M. M.Beyerlein & D. A.Johnson
(Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Theories of self-managing work teams (Vol. 1, pp.
187–221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structure characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2003). Customer service providers attitudes relating
to customer service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 179–187.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 7, 297–332.
Tuuli, M. M., & Rowlinson, S. (2009). Empowerment in project teams: A multilevel examination of the job
performance implications. Construction Management and Economics, 27, 473–498.
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, D. M. (2009). Work stressors, role-based
performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 254–
262.
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Shull, A., & Finch, D. M. (2009). An examination of tendency to suppress and
reappraise emotions on task-related job performance. Human Performance, 22, 23–43.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of
psychological empowerment, creative process engagement, and intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management
Journal, 53, 107–128.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents
in manufacturing Jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 587–596.
Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries
in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 75–92.
Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents:
A social network analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 744–757.
Submitted: September 2, 2009 Revised: October 11, 2010 Accepted: November 2, 2010
This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied without
the copyright holders express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval
software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user.
Source: Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 96. (4), Jul, 2011 pp. 840-850)
Accession Number: 2011-04648-001
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1037/a0022227
Week 4 – RES/825-to hw
10 Strategic Points Quantitative Study Extraction #3
In the prospectus, proposal, and dissertation there are 10 strategic points that need to be clear,
simple, correct, and aligned to ensure the research is doable, valuable, and credible. These points,
which provide a guide or vision for the research, are present in almost any research study. The
ability to identify these points is one of the first skills required in the creation of a viable doctoral
dissertation. In this assignment, you will identify and evaluate 10 strategic points in a published
quantitative research study.
General Requirements:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:





Review the Wallace, Johnson, Mathe, and Paul article (ATTACHED).
Locate and download Modified 10 Points Template. (ATTACHED)
This assignment uses a rubric (ATTACHED). Please review the rubric prior to beginning
the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
APA style is required for this assignment.
You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin.
Directions:
Assignment:
Using the Modified 10 Points Template, identify each of the 10 strategic points in this
quantitative research study.
Complete the Evaluation section of the template by addressing the following questions
250-500 words) with regard to the 10 strategic points in the study:
1. Discuss the key points in the literature review and how the author used this section to
identify the gap or problem addressed in the study.
2. Describe the variables under study and how they are a key component in this quantitative
research study. You are not expected to understand the differences between variables at this
point, but should be able to identify how they inform the problem, purpose, research
questions and data collection instruments.
3. Describe the problem and how it informed the research questions under study.
4. Describe the quantitative design used and why it is appropriate for the identified problem
and research questions. Support your response with a peer-reviewed citation from a
research source.
5. Assess the appropriateness of the instruments used to collect data and answer the research
questions as well as to address the stated problem.
6. Discuss how the problem statement informed the development of the purpose statement in
this study.
Week 4 – RUBRIC: 10 Strategic Points Quantitative Study Extraction #3
2
1
3
Less than
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.00\%
82.00\%
73.00\%
4
Good
91.00\%
5
Excellent
100.00\%
All of the 10
Most of the 10
Most of the 10
All of the 10
All of the 10
strategic points are
strategic points are strategic points are strategic points are
strategic points are present and
either missing or present, and some present, but some
present and
correctly identified
incorrectly
are incorrectly
are incorrectly
correctly identified. with meaningful
identified.
identified.
identified.
detail provided.
An evaluation of An evaluation of
An evaluation of
An evaluation of
An evaluation of the 10 points is
the 10 points is
the 10 points is
45.0 \%
the 10 points is
presented, but
presented, but is
thoroughly
Evaluation of the 10 points is
presented and
incomplete or
cursory and
presented with rich
the 10 Points not presented.
thorough.
illogical.
lacking in depth.
detail.
Thesis and/or main
claim are clear and
Thesis and/or main
forecast the
Thesis and/or main
Paper lacks any claim are
Thesis and/or main development of the claim are clear and
10.0 \% Thesis
discernible overall insufficiently
claim are apparent paper. They are
comprehensive;
Development
purpose or
developed and/or and appropriate to descriptive and
the essence of the
and Purpose
organizing claim. vague; purpose is purpose.
reflective of the
paper is contained
not clear.
arguments and
within the thesis.
appropriate to the
purpose.
Mechanical errors
Frequent and
Some mechanical
are pervasive
Prose is largely free
repetitive
errors or typos are
enough that they
of mechanical
mechanical errors present, but are not
impede
errors, although a
distract the reader. overly distracting
Writer is clearly in
communication of
few may be present.
5.0 \%
Inconsistencies in to the reader.
command of
A variety of
Mechanics of meaning.
language choice Correct sentence
standard, written,
Inappropriate
sentence structures
Writing
(register), sentence structure and
academic English.
word choice
and effective
structure, and/or audienceand/or sentence
figures of speech
word choice are appropriate
construction are
are used.
present.
language are used.
used.
Required format is
Required format is
Required format generally correct.
used, but minor
elements are
However, errors
The document is
errors are present
missing or
are present (e.g.
correctly
Required format is
(e.g. headings and
incorrect. A lack font, cover page,
formatted. In-text
rarely followed
direct quotes).
of control with
margins, and incitations and a
correctly. No
Reference page is
formatting is
text citations).
reference page are
5.0 \% APA
reference page is
present and
apparent.
Reference page is
complete and
Format
included. No inincludes all cited
Reference page is included and lists
correct. The
text citations are
sources.
present. However, sources used in the
documentation of
used.
Documentation is
in-text citations paper. Sources are
cited sources is
appropriate and
are inconsistently appropriately
free of error.
citation style is
used.
documented
usually correct.
though some errors
35.0 \%
Identification
of 10
Strategic
Points
are present.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Why Choose Us

• 100% non-plagiarized Papers
• 24/7 /365 Service Available
• Affordable Prices
• Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
• Will complete your papers in 6 hours
• On-time Delivery
• Money-back and Privacy guarantees
• Unlimited Amendments upon request
• Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

• Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
• Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
• Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
• Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
• From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.