Employee Responses to Empowering Leadership: A Meta-

Analysis

Author
Kim, Minseo, Beehr, Terry A, Prewett, Matthew S

Published
2018

Journal Title
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Version
Accepted Manuscript (AM)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817750538

Copyright Statement
Kim, M., Beehr, T.A., Prewett, M.S., Employee Responses to Empowering Leadership: A Meta-
Analysis, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2018, 25 (3), pp. 257-276. Copyright
2018 The Authors. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.

Downloaded from
http://hdl.handle.net/10072/388515

Griffith Research Online

https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 1

Employee Responses to Empowering Leadership: A Meta-Analysis

Minseo Kim, Terry A. Beehr, and Matthew S. Prewett

Department of Psychology
233 Sloan Hall
Central Michigan University
Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48859, U.S.A.

Some of these data were presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology in Orlando FL.

Author biographies

Minseo Kim is an I/O Psychology PhD student at Central Michigan University. Her research
interests include occupational stress, leadership, motivation, careers, job crafting, and employee
well-being.

Terry A. Beehr is a Professor of Psychology and member of the I/O Psychology faculty at
Central Michigan University. His research interests include occupational stress, retirement,
leadership, motivation, and careers.

Matthew S. Prewett is an Associate Professor of Psychology and member of the I/O

Psychology faculty at Central Michigan University. His research interests include team
performance, team personality composition, leadership, training, and virtual communications.

Corresponding Author:
Minseo Kim, Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University, 233 Sloan Hall, Mount
Pleasant, MI 48859, USA. Email: minseokim0331@gmail.com
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 2

Abstract

A recent and growing number of studies examined how empowering leadership influences

employee outcomes. At the individual level, we meta-analyzed 55 independent samples to

determine the association between empowering leader behaviors and subordinates’ responses.

Results confirmed the positive links of empowering leadership with evaluations of the leader as

well as with employee motivation and resources, attitudes, and performance; the strongest

correlation was between empowering leadership and attitudes towards the leader (ρ = .59),

whereas the weakest correlation was for empowering leadership with behavioral and

performance outcomes (ρ = .31). However, the relationship of empowering leadership with

subordinates’ emotions was not significant. Examination of potential moderators, including

rating sources, nationality of sample, gender, and industry, did not explain much of the

heterogeneity in the results. In sum, findings highlight the potential benefit of empowering

leadership for individual and organizational outcomes. Thus, more knowledge about what causes

empowering leadership could be useful.

Keywords: empowering leadership, outcomes, meta-analysis

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 3

Employee Responses to Empowering Leadership: A Meta-Analysis

In dynamic working environments, employee empowerment could give organizations

advantages in acquiring and sustaining competitive positions in their markets, if it results in

favorable employee attitudes, motivation, and behaviors. Because empowered employees believe

in their ability to perform meaningful work and to influence their environments, they tend to

work independently and exhibit adaptive behaviors beyond their formal work roles (Amundsen

& Martinsen, 2014a; Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Martin, Liao, & Campbell, 2013; Spreitzer,

1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Indeed, some studies have shown positive effects of

empowerment on some subordinates’ work outcomes (Maynard, Gilson, & Mathieu, 2012;

Maynard, Luciano, D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Dean, 2014; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004;

Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011).

Early work on the construct of empowerment was related to motivational theories,

especially to the (1) job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) and (2) Bandura’s

work on perceived self-efficacy (1982, 1997). According to the former theory, particular job

characteristics, including autonomy and feedback, cause positive psychological states including

felt responsibility, which is conceptually related to empowerment. Autonomy, feedback, and

responsibility constitute elements of intrinsic motivation in job design and thus indirectly predict

favorable outcomes. In addition to the potential for job redesign to provide employees with

greater autonomy and control resulting in empowerment, the individual difference of self-

efficacy may also have an effect. Self-efficacy is individual’s belief or confidence that he or she

can perform tasks successfully (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is a foundation of motivation and

performance achievement, making employees believe that their performance depends on their

efforts and actions, and thus intrinsically motivating them to work hard to produce desired results
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 4

(Bandura, 1997). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that empowerment, as a broader

motivational state than just self-efficacy, is an active orientation toward work, motivating

employees by making them feel responsible for their own work effectiveness. Empowering

leadership is related to the job design perspective because leaders have the potential to influence

their own subordinates’ job design by for example, allowing them more discretion or varied

assignments. Empowering leaders can be seen as using high involvement management

approaches by giving authority and responsibility to subordinates (Leach, Wall, & Jackson,

2003).

Empowering leadership bears some similarities to other prominent theories of leadership.

The most similar of these is probably participative leadership or participative management, but

this is a narrower construct than empowering leadership. Participative leadership has been

recognized and advocated by writers for almost a century. Its meaning has varied, sometimes

widely, but its main focus has always been on the individual subordinate’s or group’s

participation in decision making that would normally be done by the leader in a classically

structured, hierarchical organization. Follett (1926) argued for a participative management style

in which expertise, often found in subordinates, would determine who made important decisions

for a business unit, often resulting in decisions determined by a combination of influence from

supervisors and subordinates. Likert (1961) advocated participative group decision-making as

the most effective style, which he labeled System 4, although most of his writing and examples

seemed to apply to management groups. Vroom and Yetton’s (1973) approach also tended to

focus on management, proposing a normative leadership decision-making model in which a

range of styles from autocratic to group participative decision making was advocated, depending

on the nature of several situational characteristics. Finally, Koopma and Wierdsma (1998)
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 5

defined participative leadership primarily by its democratic decision-making process. Overall,

descriptions of participative leadership have a long history; they have not always been consistent,

but the most key feature is participation specifically in decision making. In addition, we observe

somewhat strong but secondary emphases on participative leadership at management levels and

on participation as a group more than delegation to individuals.

Empowering leadership is a conceptually broader construct, because it includes more

than participation in decision making, instead allowing subordinates to take charge of any part of

their work; empowering leadership also does not focus on specific levels or types of jobs and

does not specify participation by groups versus individuals. In addition to differences in the

constructs, empowering leadership measures often include participative decision-making

behaviors in the form of subscales, another indication that participative leadership is meant to be

a narrower construct included within a broader empowering leadership construct (e.g., Arnold,

Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000). Empirically, empowering leadership and consultation (a term

including participative leadership; Leana, 1987) were shown to have distinct antecedents and

consequences (Leana, 1987; Yukl & Fu, 1999). Moreover, although empowering leadership

includes participation or delegation, by definition, empowering leadership also consists of giving

subordinates a strong feeling of self-determination, trust, goal focus, self-confidence, and

development support (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014b;

Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty, 2000; Manz & Sims, 1987).

Secondarily, empowering leadership shares some similarities with Leader-Member

Exchange (LMX) and transformational leadership. LMX means that managers develop a unique

quality of relationship with each of their subordinates, rather than having the same relationship

across all subordinates. LMX and empowering leadership have in common that both can refer to
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 6

the dyadic relationship between leader and subordinate. However, these two leadership styles are

different, because some subordinates, especially new employees, may perceive a high quality of

the exchange relationship when leaders exhibit directive behaviors and assign goals or work

without power sharing (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). That is, LMX does not necessarily imply

delegation of power. Thus, empowering leadership may lead to favorable LMX with some

employees more than others. Leaders may differentiate among subordinates according to their

competence, performance, and other factors such as leaders’ expectations or mutual liking in

deciding how to treat each one (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997).

Transformational leaders encourage subordinate self-development, provide a vision for

the future, and pay attention to the subordinate’s needs by exhibiting four kinds of behaviors:

idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized

consideration (Bass & Riggio, 2006). However, unlike empowering leaders, transformational

leaders may display these four behaviors without transferring power to subordinates, and

subordinates are not normally allowed participation in making the vision itself (Amundsen &

Martinsen, 2014b; Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). Importantly, factor analyses have shown that

empowering leadership is empirically distinct from transformational, transactional, and directive

leadership (Pearce, Sims, Cox, Ball, Schnell, Smith, & Trevino, 2003). Taken together,

empowering leadership can be a distinct type of leadership, conceptually and empirically,

through emphases on different aspects of the leadership process, such as encouraging

subordinates to take initiative, emphasizing subordinates’ focus on goals, showing confidence in

subordinates in order to increase their sense of self-efficacy and motivation, and providing

developmental support in order to enhance subordinates’ skills (Ahearne et al., 2005; Amundsen

& Martinsen, 2014b; Arnold et al., 2000; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 7

Theoretically, empowering leadership can be an effective leadership style for both

employees and organizations because its behaviors generate intrinsic motivation of employees,

thereby linking to favorable outcomes including job satisfaction, engagement, creativity, and

work performance and extra-role behaviors (Amundsen & Martinson, 2015; Humborstad,

Nerstad, & Dysvik, 2014; Raub & Robert, 2010; Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2010; Tuckey,

Bakker, & Dollard, 2012; Zhang & Zhou, 2014). However, not all studies find these favorable

results for empowering leadership. Some studies proposed empowering leadership might have

detrimental consequences, perhaps because empowering leader behaviors focusing on high

autonomy in decision-making and on task delegation might increase task uncertainty, thereby

resulting in reduced performance (Cordery, Morrison, Wright, & Wall, 2010; Martin et al.,

2013). Similarly, empowering leadership has decreased work performance through increasing

employees’ job-induced tension (Cheong, Spain, Yammarino, & Yun, 2016). Potential costs due

to initial performance delay were also found, probably because empowering leader behaviors

focused on modeling and idea exchanges instead of job performance (Lorinkova, Pearsall, &

Sims, 2013). Moreover, inverted U-shaped relationships between empowering leadership and

employee job performance were suggested (Lee, Cheong, Kim, & Yun, 2016). Other studies

found no direct effects of empowering leadership on performance (Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke,

2006). Further, some employees benefited from empowering leaders’ behaviors, but not others

(Ahearne et al., 2005). Overall, the effect of empowering leadership looks quite complex and

uncertain. Therefore, a meta-analytic approach will help clarify the situation and determine the

extent to which the display of empowering leadership is beneficial for work outcomes and to

derive a more accurate estimate of its magnitude of influence on the variety of outcomes that

have been examined in the empirical literature.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 8

Sharma and Kirkman (2015) reviewed and summarized the empowering leadership

literature, but a quantitative review of the consequences of empowering leadership has not yet

been provided. We fill this gap in the leadership literature with a systematic meta-analysis on

how empowering leadership relates to individual and organizational outcomes. This study helps

integrate research findings to better understand the correlates of empowering leadership. Because

research on empowering leadership is in a relatively early stage, this review also allows us to

uncover gaps in the literature to guide future empirical and theoretical developments. Further, we

examine potential moderators of empowering leadership-outcomes relationships, which may

provide understanding of any inconsistent effects of empowering leadership on its criterion

domain.

Outcomes of Empowering Leadership

We first reviewed empowering leadership studies that have been conducted so far and

classified outcomes of empowering leadership into five categories: evaluations of leaders,

motivation and resources, emotions, attitudes, and performance (Figure 1). Table 1 contains all

categories of outcomes used and gives examples of the concepts under each category. The meta-

analysis thus examined the relationship between empowering leadership and those five

subordinate outcomes. Multiple measures were considered in each of these outcome categories.

Some studies examined attitudes or assessments that employees hold about leaders’

empowering behaviors. These studies argued that leader’s empowering behaviors are positively

related to subordinates’ trust in the leader (e.g., Bobbio, Bellan, & Manganelli, 2012) and

perceived leader effectiveness (e.g., Tekleab, Sims Jr, Yun, Tesluk, & Cox, 2008). Empowering

leader behaviors may help to create trusting and supportive environments in which leaders show

respect for the subordinate. Because of this, subordinates often evaluate their leaders’
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 9

effectiveness favorably due to developing trust in their leader based on both affective and

cognitive states.

Hypothesis 1. Empowering leadership will be related to positive evaluations of leaders.

There is broad agreement that empowering leadership contributes to generating intrinsic

motivation and resources in some form, such as psychological empowerment, self-efficacy, role

clarity, and goal orientation. Employee motivation and psychological resources are important

components influencing work outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Spreitzer, 1995). Some

forms of psychological resources, such as self-efficacy and optimism, are linked to positive

outcomes because they make employees feel capable of controlling their work environment as

well as feel more resilient, which can result in positive appraisals of demanding or otherwise

adverse situations (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). In other words,

employees working in a resourceful environment (e.g., one with autonomy, opportunities to

learn, and high-quality coaching) feel more confident about their capabilities and create

favorable working environments that facilitate their goal achievement, which consequently leads

to other positive individual and organizational outcomes.

Employees’ psychological empowerment may be one of the profitable personal resources

in the workplace; 23 studies included in our meta-analysis found that empowering leadership is

an influential leadership style for promoting employees’ perceptions of psychological

empowerment consisting of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Self-efficacy,

an individual’s belief in the ability to achieve desired outcomes across a variety of tasks and

situations (Bandura, 1997), is also enhanced through empowering leaders’ guidance, coaching,

and modeling. In a similar vein, organization-based self-esteem (i.e., employees’ beliefs about

their own value and competence as organizational members within the context of the workplace;
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 10

Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989) is promoted by empowering leadership.

Increased job autonomy may convey to employees that they are trusted and worthy organization

members (influencing their efficacy and esteem). Empowering leader behaviors such as offering

personal and professional challenges with high standards also allow employees to experience

self-value and competence at work. Additionally, Martínez-Córcoles, Gracia, Tomás, and Peiró

(2014) suggested that empowering leader behaviors such as sharing information on the

organization’s mission as well as encouraging participative goal-setting and decision making

increase employees’ a sense of control and understanding their roles and expectations. Finally,

employee goal orientation was also found to be positively related to empowering leadership;

when individuals high in goal orientation work with empowering leaders, they are more likely to

be motivated in their work and make more effort, thereby increasing their level of performance.

Hypothesis 2. Empowering leadership will be positively related to the development of

employee motivation and resources.

Employees’ positive attitudes including job satisfaction, commitment, work engagement,

and favorability toward knowledge sharing were predicted by empowering leaders’ behaviors in

some studies. Subordinates who experienced empowering leadership reported higher levels of

job satisfaction, probably because empowering leaders emphasize their discretion in setting goals

and determining work procedures, which helps employees to understand and perform whole

pieces of work and eventually makes it possible for subordinates to derive meaning from the job

(e.g., Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014b). Employees also reciprocated beneficial empowering

leader behaviors by demonstrating higher commitment when they perceived that leaders gave

them individualized support and sufficient opportunity to voice opinions in their work (e.g., Den

Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009). Autonomy, one of the core factors of empowering leadership, has
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 11

been identified as a predictor of work engagement (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011); empowering

leaders can promote autonomy-related states such as self-leadership, challenging work, and

opportunity thinking, by encouraging subordinates to view unsuccessful performance as a chance

to learn, providing employees with opportunities to satisfy their higher order needs and

triggering positive attitudes towards the job. Additionally, some studies found that employees

feel more positive about sharing their ideas and knowledge when they receive recognition about

their contribution from their empowering leaders (Eze, Goh, Goh, & Tan, 2013). Thus,

empowering leader behaviors also facilitate positive attitudes about communication among

employees, thereby promoting opportunities to share their knowledge (Xue, Bradley, & Liang,

2011).

Hypothesis 3. Empowering leadership will be positively related to employee attitudes.

In addition to employee attitudes, which are both evaluative and affective responses

toward specific work-related objects, empowering leadership has also been studied in relation to

emotions, which are stronger affective states that may or may not have a specific object or

referent. Only a few studies examined employee emotions relevant to empowering leadership,

and most of them examined (reduced) negative emotions (e.g., Cheong et al., 2016), contrary to

the studies of employee attitudes, which were mostly about (increased) positive attitudes.

Employees working with empowering leaders are more likely to have autonomy and positive

work experiences, and thereby they may feel less burnout and tension from their job as well as

possess less cynical attitudes. Prior studies suggested that experiences of negative emotions (e.g.,

emotional exhaustion and cynicism) may result from too many demands with few resources

(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). From the perspective of COR theory (Conservation of Resources;

Hobfoll, 2011), positive work experiences resulting from empowering leadership may help
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 12

employee obtain, retain, and foster enduring personal resources or the necessary energy. That is,

empowering leadership as a resource is likely to help employee better deal with work-related

issues, thereby counteracting the effect of negative emotions.

Hypothesis 4. Empowering leadership will be negatively related to employee negative

emotions.

Finally, consequences of empowering leadership on performance include creativity and

innovative behaviors, in-role performance, contextual performance, and withdrawal behaviors.

Results for the effects of empowering leadership on creativity and innovative behaviors seem to

support the argument that empowering leadership has positive relationships with these outcomes

(Gkorezis, 2016; Zhang & Zhou, 2010; 2014). Additionally, empowering leadership may have

negative effects on employee withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism and turnover intentions

(Dewettinck & van Ameijde, 2011; Kim & Beehr, 2016b); that is, an employee’s intent to stay

with or quit the organization depends on the work experiences and interactions with the leader.

This would happen if the leader creates positive and trusting working relationships or working

situations that are generally satisfying.

However, findings regarding job and contextual performance, which are the most

examined performance outcomes of empowering leadership, are inconsistent. There are also

arguments that the relationship of empowering leadership with in-role and extra-role

performance (which are similar to contextual performance) is not linear (e.g., Humborstad et al.,

2013). Furthermore, there can be a cost of autonomy (e.g., Langred & Moye, 2004) if it requires

cognitive effort and distraction, and based on role theory, autonomy might entail some role

ambiguity and conflict (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Therefore,
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 13

empowerment constitutes control and freedom, but that can either increase and/or diminish

employees’ work performance (e.g., Jeong, Gong, & Ju, 2016).

Nevertheless, the majority of thinking and research seems to indicate that empowering

leadership has mostly favorable effects on performance variables. That is, empowering

leadership should facilitate employee performance (e.g., Raub & Robert, 2010), because

empowering leaders stimulate employees’ autonomous motivation; based on self-determination

theory, this motivation leads employees who are given greater independence from higher

authority to show higher levels of job and contextual performance. Furthermore, empowering

leaders’ modeling, coaching, and informing behaviors provide employees with task-relevant

knowledge and information so that they can perform their tasks correctly. Theoretically, there are

multiple reasons to assume that empowering leadership will likely have effects on overall

performance.

Hypothesis 5. Empowering leadership will be positively related to employee

performance.

Moderators of Empowering Leadership

We also planned to examine two potential moderators of the relationship between

empowering leadership and outcomes: the source of the criterion measure and the nation in

which the study was conducted (as a surrogate for culture). Regarding whether source of the

criterion measure (self-report vs. other ratings) moderated the relationship between empowering

leadership and performance, measurement source may have influence effect size due to common

method variance possibly enhancing the effect size. Empowering leadership was typically

measured from the subordinates’ point of view, but some criteria were measured from the

subordinates’ and some from the leaders’ points of view.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 14

Relationships between leadership styles and employee reactions also may be contingent

on cultural values, including power distance, individualism-collectivism, and/or uncertainty

avoidance (Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009; Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012). For

example, power distance is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of

institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed

unequally” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 98). Power distance plays an important role in how employees

react to supervisors who hold higher positions in the organization (Kirkman et al., 2009). Some

Asian countries such as China and South Korea are typically known as high power distance

societies, whereas North American countries such as Canada and the United States can be

considered relatively low power distance cultures (Javidan, Dorfman, De Luque, & House,

2006). Empowering leadership may have a weaker effect on employee outcomes when

employees were in high power distance societies, because they tend to rely on superiors and thus

may expect and accept charismatic and/or autocratic leadership better than consultative and

participative leadership. Likewise, Asian countries tend to differ from North American countries

on the cultural domain of uncertainty avoidance, in which Asians express a weaker preference

for uncertain or ambiguous situations than their North American counterparts (Hofstede, 2001).

As a result, another reason empowering leadership may be less effective in Asian countries is

that such empowerment behaviors induce role ambiguity or uncertainty over the responsibilities

of the subordinate as compared to the responsibilities of the leader. Examination of specific

cultural dimensions was not feasible due to the lack of studies measuring them. However,

indirect evidence of their cumulative effect might be observed from cross-national comparisons,

given the correlation between cultural values and nationality.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 15

Method

Literature search and inclusion criteria

A literature search was conducted using the PsycINFO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar

databases for all articles using the search terms empowering leadership, empowering behavior,

empowering management, and empowerment climate/practices. To minimize publication bias or

the “file drawer problem,” the search included unpublished studies such as dissertations and

papers presented at relevant conference proceedings for the Academy of Management and the

Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology from 2011 to 2017. From the initial search, 65

articles contained relevant data. Among them, we eliminated 10 articles for the following

reasons: (1) There was no apparent use of an empowering leadership measure as it is

conceptualized in the empowering leadership literature; (2) there were no usable effect sizes in

the study; (3) there were no quantitative empirical data collected; (4) and/or there were only

team-level outcomes. Studies on team-level effects of empowering leadership could not be

satisfactorily examined due to the small number of available studies and the inconsistencies in

the outcomes measured. This is unfortunate, as leadership is intimately connected with team-

level activities, and empowering leadership behaviors can facilitate team performance and

functioning. Indeed, the limited research has found that empowering leadership was positively

related to team efficacy, empowerment, knowledge sharing, and team performance (Chen,

Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007; Magni & Maruping, 2013; Srivastava et al., 2006; Tung

& Chang, 2011). .

Depending on the theoretical arguments made in hypotheses, some studies used only

some of empowering leadership subscales, such as participative decision-making, informing, or

showing concern. In such cases, the correlations for the separate measures were averaged to
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 16

create a single sample correlation for empowering leadership. We did not include any studies in

which only one dimension of empowering leadership behaviors was used. For example, studies

on participative leadership often used one of subscales, adopted from the Empowering

Leadership Questionnaire (Arnold et al., 2000) to measure participative leadership behavior

(e.g., Huang, Iun, Liu, & Gong, 2010); these studies were all excluded in our meta-analysis on

the grounds that the use of only one subscale would represent a serious deficiency in the measure

of empowering leadership. Citizenship behaviors, included as indicators of contextual

performance, could be measured in a variety of ways depending on the contexts of studies. Help

behaviors, voice behaviors, and special customer-oriented service behaviors were included as

citizenship criteria, because these behaviors conceptually refer to work behaviors beyond the job

descriptions. We also coded studies for potential moderators that might explain variation in the

effect sizes: gender, industry, nationality (e.g., US vs. other countries), and rating sources (self-

rating vs. leader rating) in the performance domain.

Meta-analytic procedures

Meta-analytic estimates were derived using Schmidt and Hunter’s (2015) method. Zero-

order correlations, sample sizes, and reliabilities for predictors and criteria were used to conduct

the meta-analysis. The average reliabilities for all study variables are in Table 2. Study

correlations were weighted by the sample size to produce a sample-weighted mean correlation,

and each correlation was corrected for unreliability of both empowering leadership and the

outcome measure. To describe variability in the meta-analytic estimates, we reported 80%

credibility intervals and 95% confidence intervals around the estimated population correlations.

Confidence intervals provide an estimate of the variability around the estimated mean

correlation; a 95% confidence interval excluding zero indicates that one can be 95% confident
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 17

that the average true score correlation is larger than zero. Credibility intervals provide an

estimate of the variability of individual correlations across studies; an 80% credibility interval

excluding zero for a positive average correlation indicates that 90% of the individual correlations

in the meta-analysis were greater than zero (fewer than 10% are zero or less and a maximum of

10% lie beyond the upper bound of the interval). Thus, confidence intervals estimate variability

in the meta-analytic correlation, whereas credibility intervals estimate variability in the

individual correlations across the samples.

Percentage of variance in effect sizes explained by artifacts was also computed using the

methods suggested by Schmidt and Hunter (2015). To test for homogeneity in the population

effect size estimate, we used Schmidt and Hunter’s (2015) 75% rule. This test is a rule of thumb

for determining if the heterogeneity is high enough to be meaningful. The ratio of the estimate of

error variance in the population effect size to variance in the observed effect sizes was compared

to 0.75. If this value exceeds 0.75, the remaining unexplained variance is likely due to

uncorrected artifacts in the studies and can be ignored.

Results

Table 3 presents results of the meta-analyses on the potential effects of empowering

leadership on employees’ evaluations of leaders (ρ = .59 across all leader evaluation criteria).

Empowering leadership was related to positive leader evaluations of trust in the leader (ρ = .65),

leader-member exchange (ρ = .59), and perceived leader effectiveness (ρ = .55), supporting

hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2, that empowering leadership would be related to the development of

employee motivation and resources, was also supported (ρ = .40 overall). Empowering

leadership was positively related to role clarity (ρ = .52), psychological empowerment (ρ = .46),

self-leadership (ρ = .39), goal orientation and work effort (ρ = .30), and self-efficacy and
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 18

organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) (ρ = .29). Hypothesis 3, that empowering leadership

would be related to positive attitudes and emotions, was supported too (ρ = .43 overall);

empowering leadership was positively related to job satisfaction (ρ = .43), commitment (ρ = .40),

work engagement (ρ = .45), and knowledge sharing (ρ = .50). Hypothesis 4 however, was not

supported, because the 95% confidence interval included the value zero (CI 95%: LL = -.54, UL =

.12), indicating that empowering leadership did not have significant relationship with negative

emotions. Lastly, the results did support hypothesis 5, that empowering leadership would be

related to performance (ρ = .31 overall). Specifically, empowering leadership was positively

related to creativity and innovative behavior (ρ = .36), contextual performance (ρ = .33),

withdrawal behaviors (ρ = .28), and job performance (ρ = .25). Overall, empowering leadership

may positively influence evaluations of leaders and the subordinate’s motivation factors, work

attitudes, and performance, but not the subordinate’s emotions.

Tests of moderation

In an effort to examine whether the results of the meta-analysis were affected by the

study design variables, we conducted moderator analyses on potential moderators that were part

of the meta-analytic dataset. As can be seen in Table 3, the amount of explained variance in the

observed correlations is less 75%, suggesting the presence of moderators based on the 75% rule

(as described above; Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). We also used the 80% credibility interval to

judge the likelihood and significance of moderators. Many potential moderators could not be

analyzed because of a small number of studies in some categories, and thus moderator results

should be interpreted as only suggestive (see Table 4, 5, 6, and 7).

First, regarding source of the criterion measure as a moderator, when performance (e.g.,

creativity, job performance, and contextual performance) was rated by self-reports, a moderate
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 19

positive correlation appeared, from ρ = .33 to ρ =.45, and the correlations for other-ratings of

performance were lower (ρ = .21 to ρ = .31). The empowering leadership-contextual

performance (e.g., citizenship and deviance behaviors) relation seems to vary the most by rating

source. The overall analysis revealed that the effect sizes were stronger for self-reported criteria

(ρ = .42) than other-reported criteria (ρ = .26), and the standard deviation of the true score

correlation decreased when we considered different source estimates (SDρ = .09, compared with

SDρ = .12 for the same source), which may be due to common source bias (Table 4).

The second moderator we examined was nation, a surrogate for culture. Thus, we

compared the United States and Canada with Asian countries (e.g., South Korea and China) and

“other” countries in cases where there were at least two studies conducted in each of these

regions. We found that the relationship between empowering leadership and psychological

empowerment was ρ = .51 in Asian samples, whereas it was ρ = .41 in North American samples.

Studies using Asian and North American samples yielded the same corrected correlations for job

satisfaction (ρ = .43). For commitment and self-concepts (e.g., self-efficacy and OBSE),

however, North American samples yielded a corrected correlation greater than Asian samples did

(ρ = .41 vs. ρ = .31 for commitment; ρ = .54 vs. ρ = .34 for self-concepts), which is in the

direction suggested by the rationale that empowering leadership would have more positive

effects in individualistic cultures. The difference was modest, however.

For testing more exploratory moderators, gender and industry were examined mainly

because these variables were available in the data rather than for conceptual reasons (see Tables

6 and 7). However, the patterns of results of these moderator analyses were not strong,

consistent, or clear. For gender, the largest difference in effect sizes was for evaluations of

leaders. Women employees seem to hold more favorable views about empowering leaders than
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 20

men, showing higher correlations for evaluations of leaders (ρ = .70 for women vs. ρ = .49 for

men). Men and women were not different in the strength of the relationships between

empowering leadership and the other criteria.

We also compared industry types (samples from service vs samples from manufacturing

vs sample from technology). Regarding industry, only the relationship between empowering

leadership and employees’ evaluations of their leaders varied noticeably. In the service sector,

the relationship between empowering leadership and evaluations of leaders was stronger than in

the manufacturing sector (ρ = .75 vs ρ = .50). There were not enough studies in the technology

sector to make comparisons of effects sizes for it with the other sectors.

Finally, we also did some reanalysis to determine the degree to which unpublished

studies might be affecting the overall results and conclusions. All studies were either published

in journals, were dissertations (2), or were conference presentations (8); in the reanalysis, we

removed the dissertations and conference presentations from the data. In the five major

categories of outcomes (Table 3), the number of unpublished studies ranged from only 0-6.

When we removed these studies and ran the meta-analysis again for the five outcome categories,

the results were substantially the same. For three of the five main categories of outcomes, the

Mean ρ was unchanged, and for the other two there was a change of only .01 and .02. We

conclude that the inclusion of the unpublished studies did not affect the study’s conclusions.

Discussion

Empowering leadership theoretically links to positive and constructive variables such as

job autonomy (e.g., Zhang & Bartol, 2010) and self-efficacy (e.g., Kim & Beehr, in pressa) and

therefore is expected to promote favorable employee perceptual, attitudinal, motivational and

behavioral outcomes. There have been mostly positive results regarding these outcomes, but
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 21

there are exceptions too. Enough studies have now accumulated so that a meta-analysis can aid

us in coming to valid conclusions about the quantitative research results overall. Thus, as the first

meta-analytic review of empowering leadership, the present study estimated population effect

sizes by combining the results of studies on the relations between empowering leader behavior

and five outcome domains. Our findings indicated that empowering leadership has positive

relationships with evaluations of leaders, employee motivation, work attitudes, and performance,

but not with subordinates’ emotions. Empowering leadership includes relational-oriented

behaviors such as treating employees with respect and showing concern for individual employees

through consulting and coaching, thereby creating trusting and supportive atmosphere. These

leader behaviors contribute to making strong interpersonal connections with subordinates and

eventually trigger higher levels of trust in and satisfaction with their leaders.

Most studies included in the current meta-analysis characterized empowering leadership

behaviors as development support by providing continuous learning and development

opportunities through leaders’ guidance and role modeling, as well as autonomy/motivation

support by expressing confidence in subordinates, providing opportunities for subordinates to

participate in decision making along with sharing information and encouraging initiative. These

characteristics of empowering leadership result in desirable employee attitudes and behaviors.

The main reason for this is that from the perspective of motivation theories related to self-control

(e.g., self-determination theory, Deci and Ryan, 2000; action regulation theory, Raabe, Frese, &

Beehr, 2007), fulfilling employees’ psychological needs for autonomy (feeling in control),

competence, and relatedness (feeling cared for) can raise levels of intrinsic motivation.

Further, empowering leadership behaviors are likely to foster employees’ job-related

resources such as developmental resources (e.g., feedback and career coaching) and work
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 22

resources (e.g., autonomy and encouragement of the use of skills and competence), which may

function not only in achieving work goals but also building more resources (so-called gain

spirals; Hobfoll, 2011). These resources also have intrinsic motivational potential by stimulating

personal growth and learning. Consequently, employees working for empowering leaders in a

resourceful work environment can develop favorable attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction and

commitment) and performance behaviors (e.g., citizenship behaviors and creativity). These

results are in line with studies suggesting that some form of job resources such as autonomy,

social support, feedback, and opportunities to learn made employees hold positive attitudes,

thereby becoming more engaged in their jobs and less absent and burned out (Schaufeli, &

Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009).

Contrary to our expectation, no significant relationship between empowering leadership

and negative emotions (e.g., emotional exhaustion or burnout) was found. One possible

explanation is that empowering leadership, in its emphasis on freedom and self-management,

may leave some employees with greater workloads than they prefer and may therefore induce

job-related tension. However, only a few studies examined the link between empowering leader

behaviors and undesirable employee emotions, and thus we cannot conclude strongly that

empowering leadership plays any role in triggering negative (or positive) emotions. Future

research may provide more effect sizes to bolster the strength of any conclusion.

It is also important to note that some effect sizes have little to no variability, while other

effect sizes fluctuate and show evidence of heterogeneity (as indicated by the variance explained

by artifacts). Specifically, regarding motivation and resources (Table 3), there were stable effects

for self-leadership and role clarity (SDρ is less than .05, and the percentage of variance explained

is greater than 75.00). Among the attitudes, work engagement showed instability in effect sizes
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 23

(SDρ = .20), which suggests the possibility of moderators. The other three attitudes had .05 to .08

SDρ. Similarly, in the performance domains, withdrawal showed good stability (SDρ = .03), but

none of the other performance measures were particularly stable (.11 to .12 SDρ). We therefore

encourage additional research on the relationship between empowering leadership and two

categories of outcomes, evaluations of leaders and motivation and resources, especially

searching for moderators of their relationships with empowering leadership. This will help us

understand specific conditions under which empowering leadership may have stronger effects on

these types of employees’ outcomes. Taken together, empowering leadership promotes a

working environment characterized by a higher degree of autonomy, participation, personal

development, and employees’ positive psychological states, many of which are theoretically

related to intrinsic motivation. Therefore, empowering leadership is likely to result in a host of

beneficial outcomes for both individuals and organizations.

We tested four variables for possible moderation: source of the measures, nation (or

continent) in which the study was conducted, gender, and industry. For source of ratings and

nation, we had some general reasons for the analyses, but for gender and industry, the

examination was done simply because there was enough variance in those variables to be worth

looking at them. The most straight-forward explanation of the source effects is methodological,

that common method variance inflated the effect sizes. We were able test source effects mainly

on performance-type outcomes, and common methods (when the subordinate was the source of

both the empowering leadership and performance ratings) resulted in stronger effects.

For nation as a moderator, we think that cultural values may play a role, but the primary

studies did not measure culture variables, and so we strongly encourage future research to

examine specific cultural values as possible moderators of the relationship between empowering
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 24

leadership and outcomes. Overall, the differences we found were between Asian and North

American samples. We characterize the differences we found as few, modest, and inconsistent,

however, and so we can only offer very tentative interpretations. The Asian samples reported

feeling more empowered by the empowering leaders, which may be due to the lesser experience

with empowerment in more power-distance and uncertainty-avoidance cultures. That is,

experiencing empowering leadership in the Asian samples may have been a greater contrast to

the normal situation in Asian than in North American organizations. The experience of greater

deviation from the norm thus may have led to reporting more empowerment in the Asian

samples. North American samples had more positive organizational commitment and self-

concepts than Asian samples in relation to empowering leadership, however. This is in line with

what we would have expected. That is, empowering leadership is seen favorably in lower power-

distance and uncertainty-avoidance cultures, and therefore, the North American employees were

more likely to react positively to it by committing to the organization and feeling self-

enhancement. It would be logical to propose a mediation model in which empowering leadership

results in psychological empowerment, which then leads to outcomes (e.g., commitment,

engagement, performance, and careers) (Fong & Snape, 2015; Kim & Beehr, 2017a; Raub &

Robert, 2013; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). The mediation effects might differ by culture, however,

with this effect being found in Western cultures (e.g., those with low power distance and

uncertainty avoidance values) more than in Eastern cultures (e.g., those with higher power

distance and uncertainty avoidance values). We recommend future research on this issue.

Employee gender and industry were the other two moderators we considered, and the

results for them were modest. For gender, there was only moderation between empowering

leadership and evaluations of leaders: Female subordinates evaluated leaders more positively if
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 25

the leader employed empowering behaviors. This means that women think empowering leaders

are more effective, more trustworthy, and/or have better relationships with their subordinates

than men do. It remains to be discovered by future research why men do not seem to be as

favorably impressed by empowering leadership, however. Finally, regarding industry, there were

stronger effects sizes between empowering leadership and evaluations of leaders for employees

in the service industry than in manufacturing. The nature of the typical jobs in service versus

manufacturing companies may explain this. For those in service jobs, often dealing with

customers, having the power to make adjustments in their work to please idiosyncratic people

may be useful for performing effectively, and therefore supervisors who empower the

subordinates are seen as supervising more effectively. In contrast, manufacturing jobs are more

likely to deal with standardized, inanimate materials that require less autonomy to adjust one’s

actions than working with humans (e.g., customers) requires. However, future research is needed

in order to determine whether this is the reason for the moderating effects of industry.

Study implications

The results of current study yield several meaningful implications for both research and

practice. As mentioned already, the small number of available studies for some analyses suggests

that primary research continue to investigate the links between empowering leadership and many

of the outcome variables examined here. As an example, research on the link between

empowering leadership and emotions is represented by just three studies. Additionally, some

relationships showed substantial variability in magnitude, yet moderator analyses provided by

the current study did little to explain this variability. Future research should consider both

contextual variables and individual characteristics as possible moderators. For example,

empowering leadership may be construed as a source of stress for employees who desire
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 26

structure and have low needs for autonomy. Likewise, it may be that empowering leadership

works best for employees who possess the competencies for effective leadership, because

empowering leadership is, to a certain extent, describing a transfer of leadership from supervisor

to subordinate.

The differential effects of empowering leadership on study outcomes also provides

important implications for the mechanisms by which empowering leadership operates.

Empowering leadership generally shows strong relations with job attitudes, leader evaluations,

and indicators of employee motivation, suggesting that these variables are key mechanisms to the

act of empowerment. As noted above, variables like these could be mediators. We note,

however, that these potential mediator variables also tend to be highly correlated with each other,

and it remains unclear which mediators are most relevant to linking empowerment with

performance measures. This issue awaits future research. As an example, does self-efficacy

retain a meaningful relationship with empowering leadership and/or performance after the

broader construct of psychological empowerment is considered?

The results from this study also provide a firm foundation for comparing the effects of

empowering leadership with the effects from other leadership constructs. Such efforts would

help establish the value of empowering leadership behaviors over other positive leadership

behaviors in the literature. Although research has established a distinction between empowering

leadership and transformational leadership through factor analysis (e.g., Pearce et al., 2003),

these leadership constructs are each theorized to influence performance by improving employee

engagement and job attitudes. Because empowering leadership emphasizes psychological

empowerment to a much greater extent than transformational leadership, it may have a greater

effect on employee engagement indicators and job attitudes than transformational leadership
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 27

does. Research examining any differential relationships with important work variables is limited,

however. Authentic leadership, with its focus on relational transparency and balanced

processing, may also share conceptual and empirical overlap with empowering leadership that

deserves scrutiny (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011).

Implications for applied uses of empowering leadership are also promising. Based on the

characteristics of empowering leadership, organizations may benefit from developing

empowering leadership programs, given the potential for the mostly positive consequences of

having empowering leaders. In order to encourage leaders to engage in empowering leadership,

it may be helpful for organizations to consider creating a reward system (e.g., advancement)

and/or selection tools for manager-level positions that take into account successful empowering

leaders. Developing ways to select managers who are already naturally inclined toward

empowering styles could benefit the organization and the people in it, and reinforcing

empowering leadership with appropriate rewards would strengthen the effects. For current

managers, training and leadership coaching also would be a feasible strategy, both to develop

empowering leadership skills and to motivate their use (Ely, Boyce, Nelson, Zaccaro, Hernez-

Broome, & Whyman, 2010).

Although studies conducting team-level analysis were not included in the current

analysis, many of the observed effects with empowering leadership have profound implications

for team- and group-level functioning. For example, the positive correlation between

empowering leadership and subordinate LMX suggests that empowering leadership can reduce

divisions within a group, possibly preventing conflict, improving unit cohesion, and encouraging

prosocial and supportive behaviors. Additionally, the positive effect of empowering leadership

on subordinate efficacy and self-regulation may also transfer to team-level efficacy and
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 28

regulation. Some existing research supports these suggestions (e.g., Magni & Maruping, 2013;

Srivastava et al., 2006.), but further research is required in order to have greater confidence in

these relationships.

Limitations

In our meta-analysis, some outcome categories had small numbers of studies. This can be

attributed partly to empowering leadership being somewhat new to the organizational sciences

literature. Relatedly, there were not enough studies with the necessary information for the

analysis of many meaningful moderators. As the number of studies increases in future, additional

meta-analysis may again be needed to verify the strength of our findings and explore more

boundary conditions.

Additionally, most of the studies used nonexperimental cross-sectional designs, making it

hard to draw strong causal conclusions. Leader behaviors and employee reactions might affect

each other in a bidirectional manner (as is recognized especially in LMX theory; Eisenberger,

Shoss, Karagonlar, Gonzalez‐Morales, Wickham, & Buffardi, 2014; Lian, Ferris, Morrison, &

Brown, 2014). For example, subordinates can develop trust with their leader based on the

leader’s empowering behaviors such as informing, support, and delegation. Leaders can also

reciprocate by giving more autonomy and favors to subordinates showing a high level of trust

between them. In the first situation, empowering leadership causes subordinate LMX, and in the

second situation, LMX with subordinates causes empowering leadership. That is, attitudes and

behaviors of the dyadic members become interdependent. Therefore, cross-sectional studies are

unable to provide evidence about the direction of the presumed causal relationships.

Lastly, uncovering potential mediators and more moderators of the relationship between

empowering leadership and outcomes would be helpful to answer the question of how, why, and
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 29

when empowering leadership affects individual and organizational consequences. Therefore,

future research should explore potential mediators and moderators of empowering leadership-

outcomes relationships. This could be done at both the individual and team levels, because as

noted earlier, there are currently few studies of empowering leadership at the team level. Theory-

building is warranted to rationalize how the individual and team-level variables are related to

each other.

The effect sizes were similar across global regions, but with a slight suggestion that

subordinates in Asian countries may respond better to empowering leadership than employees in

North American and European countries. Future cross-cultural research thus is warranted in

order to clarify the issue, especially research that examines specific cultural dimensions that are

theoretically relevant to the issue of empowering leadership, such as power distance, uncertainty

avoidance, or collectivism-individualism. Understanding these relationships is critical for

organizations seeking to introduce and encourage empowering leadership, as national or

organizational culture could potentially serve to undermine some of the anticipated benefits from

empowering leadership. For example, subordinates with strong power distance values may see it

as inappropriate to delegate leadership responsibility and power to subordinates. Studies are

needed in which such cultural values are measured and their effects tested. Additionally, several

Asian countries were included in our analyses. However, there may still exist some meaningful

differences among our sample’s Asian countries although all of these countries were from East

Asia (rather than South Asia, Western Asia, or Russia); future research could address this by

examining potential differences within Asia in response to empowering leadership.

Effects were stronger for self-reported criteria than other-reported criteria, and we

tentatively interpret this as the effects of common method variance, because leader
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 30

empowerment was also usually self-reported. Further research, varying sources of both the

predictor and criteria, should be done to confirm or dispel that interpretation.

Conclusion

Empowering leadership is a relatively new leadership construct that is attracting

empirical attention for understanding its function in today’s dynamic work environment. The

current meta-analysis shows support for the notion that empowering leadership is overall an

effective leadership style for increasing positive employee responses, which can lead to

promoting organization effectiveness. The results also suggest that future research may need to

explore potential antecedents of empowering leadership so that we can firmly promote ways to

increase it, and also moderators to better understand the boundaries conditions for its effects. We

hope our study serves as a platform for future theoretical and empirical works on empowering

leadership.
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 31

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

*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.

*Albrecht, S. L., & Andreetta, M. (2011). The influence of empowering leadership,

empowerment and engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in

community health service workers: Test of a model. Leadership in Health Services, 24,

228-237.

*Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2014a). Self–other agreement in empowering leadership:

Relationships with leader effectiveness and subordinates' job satisfaction and turnover

intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 784-800.

*Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2014b). Empowering leadership: Construct clarification,

conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 487-511.

*Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2015). Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction,

work effort, and creativity: The role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22, 304-323.

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership

questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader

behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249-269.

* Audenaert, M., & Decramer, A. (2016). When empowering leadership fosters creative

performance: The role of problem-solving demands and creative personality. Journal of

Management & Organization, 1-15.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 32

*Auh, S., Menguc, B., & Jung, Y. S. (2014). Unpacking the relationship between empowering

leadership and service-oriented citizenship behaviors: A multilevel approach. Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 558-579.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job demands-resources model: State of the art.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,

122–147.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

*Biemann, T., Kearney, E., & Marggraf, K. (2015). Empowering leadership and managers'

career perceptions: Examining effects at both the individual and the team level. The

Leadership Quarterly, 26, 775-789.

*Bobbio, A., Bellan, M., & Manganelli, A. M. (2012). Empowering leadership, perceived

organizational support, trust, and job burnout for nurses: A study in an Italian general

hospital. Health Care Management Review, 37, 77-87.

*Boudrias, J. S., Gaudreau, P., Savoie, A., & Morin, A. J. (2009). Employee empowerment:

From managerial practices to employees' behavioral empowerment. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 30, 625-638.

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.
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 33

*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.

*Chen, G., Sharima, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D.L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and

demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and

relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 541–557.

*Cheong, M., Spain, S. M., Yammarino, F. J., & Yun, S. (2016). Two faces of empowering

leadership: Enabling and burdening. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 602-616.

Cordery, J. L., Morrison, D., Wright, B. M., & Wall, T. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and

task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 31, 240-258.

*Dahinten, V. S., MacPhee, M., Hejazi, S., Laschinger, H., Kazanjian, M., McCutcheon, A., &

O'Brien‐Pallas, L. (2014). Testing the effects of an empowerment‐based leadership

development programme: Part 2–staff outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 22,

16-28.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the

self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2009). Empowering behaviour and leader fairness and

integrity: Studying perceptions of ethical leader behaviour from a levels-of-analysis

perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 199-230.

*Dewettinck, K., & van Ameijde, M. (2011). Linking leadership empowerment behavior to

employee attitudes and behavioural intentions: Testing the mediating role of

psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 40, 284-305.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 34

Eisenberger, R., Shoss, M. K., Karagonlar, G., Gonzalez‐Morales, M. G., Wickham, R. E., &

Buffardi, L. C. (2014). The supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS chain: Moderation

by reciprocation wariness and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 35, 635-656.

Ely, K., Boyce, L. A., Nelson, J. K., Zaccaro, S. J., Hernez-Broome, G., & Whyman, W. (2010).

Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework. The Leadership

Quarterly, 21, 585-599.

*Eze, U., Goh, G., Goh, C., & Tan, T. (2013). Perspectives of SMEs on knowledge sharing.

VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 43, 210-236.

Follett, M. P. (1926). The giving of orders. Scientific foundations of business administration

(pp.29-37). Reprinted in Shafritz, J. M., & Ott, J. S. (Eds.), Classics of organizational

theory (pp. 150-158). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

*Fong, K. H., & Snape, E. (2015). Empowering leadership, psychological empowerment and

employee outcomes: Testing a multi-level mediating model. British Journal of

Management, 26, 126-138.

*Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role

of empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 787-798.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A

review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120-1145.

*Gkorezis, P. (2016). Principal empowering leadership and teacher innovative behavior: a

moderated mediation model. International Journal of Educational Management, 30,

1030-1044.
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 35

Graham, K. A. (2015). Do leaders’ hierarchical perceptions matter? A social dominance theory

perspective of empowering leadership, abusive supervision, and team performance.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University, Philadelphia.

Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., & Parker, S.K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive

behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50,

327–347.

Günzel-Jensen, F., Jain, A. K., & Kjeldsen, A. M. (2016). Distributed leadership in health care:

The role of formal leadership styles and organizational efficacy. Leadership, 1-24.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

*Harris, T. B., Li, N., Boswell, W. R., Zhang, X., & Xie, Z. (2014). Getting what’s new from

newcomers: Empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the socialization

context. Personnel Psychology, 67, 567-604.

*Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Ethical and empowering leadership

and leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 133-146.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 116-122.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hon, A. H., & Chan, W. W. (2013). Team creative performance the roles of empowering

leadership, Creative-related motivation, and task interdependence. Cornell Hospitality

Quarterly, 54, 199-210.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 36

Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work

performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial

and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 122-143.

*Humborstad, S. I. W., & Giessner, S. R. (2015). The thin line between empowering and laissez-

faire leadership: An expectancy-match perspective. Journal of Management, doi:

0149206315574597

*Humborstad, S. I. W., Nerstad, C. G., & Dysvik, A. (2014). Empowering leadership, employee

goal orientations and work performance: A competing hypothesis approach. Personnel

Review, 43, 246-271.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the

beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. The Academy of

Management Perspectives, 20, 67-90.

*Jeong, I., Gong, Y., & Ju, S. (2016). Relationships among incremental belief, cognitive

flexibility, and innovative behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, USA.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).

Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

*Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2016a). Psychological states linking empowering leadership to

follower behaviors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of

Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, USA.

*Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2016b). The mediating role of psychological ownership in the links

between empowering leadership and subordinate behaviors. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Chicago, IL: USA.
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 37

*Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (in pressa). Self-efficacy and psychological ownership mediate the

effects of empowering leadership on both good and bad employee behaviors. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10.1177/1548051817702078

Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (in pressb). Can empowering leaders affect subordinates’ well-being

and careers because they encourage subordinates’ job crafting behaviors?" Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10.1177/1548051817727702

*Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2017a). Directing our own careers, but getting help from empowering

leaders. Career Development International, 22, 300-317.

Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2017b). Organization-based self-esteem and meaningful work mediate

effects of empowering leadership on employee behavior and well-being. Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power

distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level,

cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–764.

*Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trusty, M. L. (2000). Defining and measuring empowering

leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 60, 301-313.

Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative management. In P. J. D. Doentu, H.

Thierry, & C. J. de-Wolf (Eds.), Personnel psychology: Handbook of work and

organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 297–324). Hove, U.K.: Psychology

Press/Erlbaum.
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 38

*Kwak, W. J. (2011). Multi-level investigation of empowering leadership, leader-member

exchange, and subordinate empowerment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue

University, Indiana.

Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended

model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 89, 934-945.

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 and Organizational Psychology, 76, 27–52.

Leana, C. R. (1987). Power relinquishment versus power sharing: Theoretical clarification and

empirical comparison of delegation and participation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,

228-233.

*Lee, M. C. C., Idris, M. A., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2017). The linkages between hierarchical

culture and empowering leadership and their effects on employees’ work engagement:

Work meaningfulness as a mediator. International Journal of Stress Management, 24,

392-415.

*Lee, S., Cheong, M., Kim, M., & Yun, S. (2016). Never too much? The curvilinear relationship

between empowering leadership and task performance. Group & Organization

Management, published early online 2016.

*Li, M., Liu, W., Han, Y., & Zhang, P. (2016). Linking empowering leadership and change-

oriented organizational citizenship behavior: The role of thriving at work and autonomy

orientation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29, 732-750.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 39

*Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., & Kirkman, B. L. (2014). Cross-level influences of empowering

leadership on citizenship behavior organizational support climate as a double-edged

sword. Journal of Management, doi:10.1177/0149206314546193

*Li, P., & Chen, S. (2016). Linking perspective taking and employee creative self-efficacy: The

role of an involved leader. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of

Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, USA.

Li, S. L., Huo, Y., & Long, L. R. (2015). Chinese traditionality matters: Effects of differentiated

empowering leadership on followers’ trust in leaders and work outcomes. Journal of

Business Ethics, 1-13.

Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the

effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 97, 107–123.

Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., Morrison, R., & Brown, D. J. (2014). Blame it on the supervisor or the

subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational

deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 651-664.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lorinkova, N. M., Pearsall, M. J., & Sims, H. P. (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal

performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy of

Management Journal, 56, 573-596.

*Lorinkova, N. M., & Perry, S. J. (2014). When is empowerment effective? The role of leader-

leader exchange in empowering leadership, cynicism, and time theft. Journal of

Management, doi: 10.1177/0149206314560411

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 40

*Luo, W., Liu, D., & Zhang, K. (2016). A motivational framework of followership behavior:

Scale development and nomological network. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, USA.

Magni, M., & Maruping, L. M. (2013). Sink or swim: Empowering leadership and overload in

teams' ability to deal with the unexpected. Human Resource Management, 52, 715-739.

Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external

leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-129.

*Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive versus empowering leadership: A

field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy of

Management Journal, 56, 1372-1395.

*Martínez‐Córcoles, M., Gracia, F. J., Tomás, I., & Peiró, J. M. (2014). Strengthening safety

compliance in nuclear power operations: A role‐based approach. Risk Analysis, 34, 1257-

1269.

Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—fad or fab? A

multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38, 1231-

1281.

Maynard, M. T., Luciano, M. M., D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Dean, M. D. (2014).

Modeling time-lagged reciprocal psychological empowerment–performance

relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1244-1253.

*Namasivayam, K., Guchait, P., & Lei, P. (2014). The influence of leader empowering behaviors

and employee psychological empowerment on customer satisfaction. International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26, 69-84.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 41

Pearce, C. L., Sims Jr, H. P., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., & Trevino, L. (2003).

Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical

typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22, 273-307.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based

self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management

Journal, 32, 622-648.

Raabe, B., Frese, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2007). Action regulation theory and career-self

management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 297-311.

*Randolph, W. A., & Kemery, E. R. (2011). Managerial use of power bases in a model of

managerial empowerment practices and employee psychological empowerment. Journal

of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 95-106.

*Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2010). Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and

extra-role employee behaviors: Exploring the role of psychological empowerment and

power values. Human Relations, 63, 1743-1770.

*Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2013). Empowerment, organizational commitment, and voice behavior

in the hospitality industry evidence from a multinational sample. Cornell Hospitality

Quarterly, 54, 136-148.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship

with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 25, 293-315.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and

resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 30, 893-917.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 42

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in

research findings (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of

psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 96, 981-1003.

Sharma, P. N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2015). Leveraging leaders a literature review and future lines

of inquiry for empowering leadership research. Group & Organization Management, 40,

193-237.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange.

Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,

measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on

empowerment at work. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of organizational

behavior (pp. 54–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management

teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy and performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 49, 1239-1251.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 43

*Sumpter, D. M., Gibson, C. B., & Porath, C. (2016). Act expediently, with autonomy: Vicarious

learning, empowered behaviors, and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology,

1-15.

*Tekleab, A. G., Sims Jr, H. P., Yun, S., Tesluk, P. E., & Cox, J. (2008). Are we on the same

page? Effects of self-awareness of empowering and transformational leadership. Journal

of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 185-202.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An

“interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15,

666–681.

*Tong, D. Y. K., Rasiah, D., Tong, X. F., & Lai, K. P. (2015). Leadership empowerment

behaviour on safety officer and safety teamwork in manufacturing industry. Safety

science, 72, 190-198.

*Tuckey, M. R., Bakker, A. B., & Dollard, M. F. (2012). Empowering leaders optimize working

conditions for engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 17, 15-27.

Tung, H. L., & Chang, Y. H. (2011). Effects of empowering leadership on performance in

management team: Mediating effects of knowledge sharing and team cohesion. Journal

of Chinese Human Resources Management, 2, 43-60.

*Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2010). Empowering leadership: An examination

of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. The Leadership Quarterly, 21,

530-542.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh, PA:

University of Pittsburgh Press.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 44

*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, 840-850.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of

personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress

Management, 14, 121-141.

*Xue, Y., Bradley, J., & Liang, H. (2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and

knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15, 299-312.

*Yagil, D. (2002). The relationship of customer satisfaction and service workers' perceived

control: Examination of three models. International Journal of Service Industry

Management, 13, 382-398.

*Yoon, H. J. (2012). Predicting employee voice behavior: An exploration of the roles of

empowering leadership, power distance, organizational learning capability, and sense of

empowerment in Korean organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Yukl, G., & Fu, P. P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 20, 219-232.

*Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:

The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process

engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107-128.

*Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and

employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 150-164.

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 45

Table 1
Categories Used in the Meta-Analysis
Category Sample concepts
Evaluations of Leaders Trust in the leader, leader-member exchange,
perceived leader effectiveness
Motivation & Resources
Psychological Empowerment Psychological empowerment (impact,
meaningfulness, competence, and self-
determination)
Self-Leadership Self-leadership (achievement orientation and self-
regulation)
Self-Efficacy Generalized self-efficacy, career self-efficacy,
creative self-efficacy, organization-based self-
esteem
Goal Orientation Goal Orientation, work effort
Role Clarity Role clarity, role conflict
Attitudes
Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction, career satisfaction
Commitment Affective commitment, organizational commitment,
career commitment
Work Engagement Work engagement (vigor, dedication, and
absorption)
knowledge sharing attitudes towards knowledge sharing
Emotions Tension, burnout, cynicism
Performance
Creativity Innovative behavior, creative performance
Job Performance Job performance, task proficiency, customer
satisfaction
Contextual Performance OCBI, OCBO, helping behavior, voice behavior,
change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior,
taking charge behavior, proactive behaviors,
interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance,
time theft behaviors
Withdrawal Turnover intentions, intention to quit, intention to
stay, absenteeism
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 46

Table 2
Average Internal Consistency Reliabilities for All Study Variables
Variable Reliability (α)
Empowering leadership .91
Trust in leader .86
Leader-member exchange .90
Perceived leader effectiveness .93
Psychological empowerment .84
Self-leadership .87
Self-efficacy & OBSE .85
Goal orientation & Work effort .84
Role clarity .83
Job satisfaction .84
Commitment .86
Work engagement .92
Knowledge sharing .86
Emotional exhaustion &Tension & Cynicism .84
Creativity & Innovative behaviors .94
Job performance .88
Contextual performance .89
Withdrawals .86
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 47

Table 3
Relationships of Empowering Leadership with Employee Outcomes
% of variance
Outcome k N Mean r Mean ρ SDρ 80% CV 95% CI
accounted for

Evaluations of Leaders 13 2845 .53 .59 .17 9.32 .37, .81 .49, .69

Trust in the leader 5 1225 .57 .65 .11 16.35 .51, .79 .54, .76

Leader-Member Exchange 5 1094 .54 .59 .16 10.22 .39, .79 .45, .74

Perceived Leader Effectiveness 4 785 .49 .55 .22 6.73 .27, .83 .33, .77

Motivation & Resources 39 13525 .35 .40 .15 11.52 .21, .59 .35, .45

Self-Leadership 3 612 .35 .39 .04 78.65 .34, .43 .30, .48

Self-Efficacy & OBSE 9 4479 .24 .29 .17 8.07 .07, .50 .17, .40

Goal Orientation & Work effort 3 1025 .26 .30 .05 59.75 .24, .36 .22, .39

Psychological Empowerment 25 7355 .41 .46 .11 19.94 .32, .60 .41, .51

Role Clarity 3 813 .46 .52 .00 100.00 .52, .52 .48, .57
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 48

Table 3
Continued
% of variance
Outcome k N Mean r Mean ρ SDρ 80% CV 95% CI
accounted for

Attitudes 23 8507 .38 .43 .08 25.96 .33, .54 .39, .48

Satisfaction 12 5196 .38 .43 .05 49.08 .37, .50 .40, .47

Commitment 12 3148 .36 .40 .08 34.63 .30, .51 .35, .46

Work Engagement 4 1096 .40 .45 .20 7.24 .19, .71 .25, .66

Knowledge Sharing 2 684 .44 .50 .08 26.58 .40, .61 .37, .64

Emotions 3 660 -.19 -.21 .28 6.69 -.57, .15 -.54, .12
Emotional Exhaustion &
3 660 -.19 -.21 .28 6.69 -.57, .15 -.54, .12
Tension & Cynicism
Performance 33 9455 .29 .31 .12 20.55 .16, .46 .27, .36
Creativity & Innovative
10 2332 .33 .36 .11 24.72 .22, .50 .28, .44
Behavior
Job Performance 12 3355 .22 .25 .11 23.87 .10, .39 .17, .32

Contextual Performance 13 5024 .30 .33 .12 14.44 .17, .49 .25, .40

Withdrawal 6 1605 .25 .28 .03 82.95 .25, 32 .23, .34

Note. k = number of samples; N = total sample size; Mean r = average weighted correlation coefficient; Mean ρ = average weighted
correlation coefficient corrected for unreliability in the dependent and independent variables; SDρ = standard deviation of Mean ρ; %
of variance accounted for refers to the variance explained by artifacts; 80% Credibility and 95% Confidence Interval based around
Mean ρ. Withdrawals, deviance, and time theft behaviors were reverse-coded.
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 49

Table 4
Categorical Moderator Analyses for Rating Source
% of variance
Variable Rating Source k N Mean r Mean ρ SDρ 80% CV 95% CI
accounted for

Leader 19 5614 .24 .26 .09 29.18 .14, .38 .21, .31
Overall
Self 9 2622 .39 .42 .12 17.73 .27, .57 .34, .51

Creativity and Leader 6 1542 .29 .31 .12 22.06 .16, .46 .21, .42
Innovative
Behavior Self 4 790 .42 .45 .00 100.00 .45, .45 .40, .49
Leader &
10 2401 .19 .21 .09 37.16 .09, .33 .14, .28
Customer
Job Performance
Self 2 954 .30 .33 .11 13.61 .19, .48 .16, .51

Leader 8 3192 .25 .27 .06 42.12 .19, .35 .21, .33
Contextual
Performance
Self 5 1832 .39 .42 .15 10.10 .24, .61 .29, .56
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 50

Table 5
Categorical Moderator Analyses for Country
% of variance
Variable Country k N Mean r Mean ρ SDρ 80% CV 95% CI
accounted for

North America 13 3231 .39 .44 .13 18.23 .28, .60 .36, .52

Overall Asia 13 3801 .40 .46 .14 14.31 .28, .63 .38, .54

Other 8 4802 .27 .32 .16 7.05 .12, .52 .20, .43
Psychological
US and Canada 10 2452 .37 .41 .08 35.60 .30, .51 .34, .47
Empowerment
Asia1 8 2594 .45 .51 .12 14.70 .35, .67 .42, .60

Other1 7 2309 .41 .46 .09 23.39 .34, .58 .38, .54
Self-Efficacy
US and Canada 3 779 .46 .54 .18 8.27 .31, .77 .32, .75
and OBSE
Asia2 5 1207 .30 .34 .08 40.75 .24, .44 .25, .43

Other2 1 Not Available

Note. Asia1 included South Korea, China, Hong Kong, and Malaysia. Other1 included Middle Eastern (e.g., Egypt, United Arab
Emirates), Norway, and Belgium. Asia2 included South Korea and China. Other2 included German.
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 51

Table 5
Continued
% of variance
Variable Country k N Mean r Mean ρ SDρ 80% CV 95% CI
accounted for

North America 8 1785 .37 .41 .05 58.00 .34, .48 .35, .47

Overall Asia 4 1006 .34 .41 .07 50.22 .32, .49 .31, .50

Other 6 4075 .39 .44 .02 76.30 .41, .46 .40, .57

Job Satisfaction US and Canada 5 1011 .40 .43 .07 48.44 .35, .52 .35, .51

Asia1 2 750 .35 .43 .07 38.80 .34, .52 .31, .55

Other1 5 3435 .38 .44 .03 55.88 .39, .48 .39, .48

Commitment US and Canada 7 1606 .37 .41 .08 40.83 .31, .51 .34, .48

Asia2 3 522 .26 .31 .00 100 .31, .31 .22, .40

Other2 2 1020 .40 .43 .08 18.92 .33, .54 .30, .56
Note. Asia1 included South Korea and Hong Kong. Asia2 included China and Hong Kong. Other1 included German, Norway, and
Belgium. Other2 included Belgium and Middle Eastern.
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 52

Table 6
Categorical Moderator Analyses for Gender
% of variance
Variable Gender k N Mean r Mean ρ SDρ 80% CV 95% CI
accounted for

Male 7 1491 .43 .49 .17 12.92 .28, .70 .36, .62
Evaluations of
Leaders
Female 4 1004 .64 .70 .12 10.53 .54, .85 .57, .82

Male 17 5315 .41 .46 .13 14.97 .30, .62 .40, .53
Motivation &
Resources
Female 14 3647 .40 .46 .12 19.14 .30, .61 .39, .53

Male 7 2624 .38 .44 .07 36.48 .35, .52 .37, .50
Attitudes
Female 11 2533 .42 .46 .11 22.82 .32, .60 .39, .53

Male 20 5854 .29 .32 .13 16.60 .15, .49 .26, .38
Performance
Female 10 2460 .25 .28 .07 49.41 .19, .36 .22, .34
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 53

Table 7
Categorical Moderator Analyses for Industry
% of variance
Variable Industry k N Mean r Mean ρ SDρ 80% CV 95% CI
accounted for

Service 2 587 .69 .75 .04 38.54 .70, .81 .68, .83
Evaluations of
Leaders
Manufacturing 7 1376 .43 .50 .17 12.75 .27, .72 .36, .63

Technology 1 Not Available

Service 13 4481 .38 .43 .05 52.71 .36, .49 .39, .46
Motivation &
Resources
Manufacturing 13 5848 .28 .33 .17 8.43 .12, .55 .24, .43

Technology 3 856 .39 .46 .20 8.11 .20, .71 .22, .69

Service 10 2905 .36 .40 .07 37.57 .30, .49 .34, .46
Attitudes
Manufacturing 4 3344 .38 .44 .05 29.55 .37, .51 .38, .50

Technology 0 Not Available

Service 11 3756 .28 .31 .07 36.88 .22, .41 .26, .37
Performance
Manufacturing 8 2249 .33 .36 .13 16.70 .19, .52 .26, .46

Technology 4 882 .24 .26 .00 100 .26, .26 .20, .33
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 54

Figure 1. Outcomes of Empowering Leadership

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 55

Appendix
Literature Review on Outcomes of Empowering Leadership Behaviors
Outcomes Name of studies
Evaluations of Leaders
Trust in the leader Bobbio et al. (2012)
(5 samples) Gao et al. (2011)
Harris et al. (2014; study 2)
Zhang & Zhou (2014; study 1)
Zhang & Zhou (2014; study 2)

Leader-Member Exchange Chen et al. (2007)

(5 samples) Hassan et al. (2013)
Kwak (2011)
S. Lee et al. (2016)
Li et al. (2016)

Perceived Leader Effectiveness Amundsen & Martinsen (2014a)

(4 samples) Hassan et al (2013)
Humborstad & Giessner (2015)
Tekleab et al. (2008)

Motivation & Resources

Self-Leadership Amundsen& Martinsen (2015; study 1)
(3 samples) Amundsen& Martinsen (2015; study 2)
Tekleab et al. (2008)

Self-Efficacy & OBSE Ahearne et al. (2005)

(9 samples) Biemann et al. (2015)
Cheong et al. (2016)
Kim & Beehr (2016a)
Kim & Beehr (in pressa)
Kwak (2011)
Li et al. (2016)
Zhang & Zhou (2014; study 1)
Zhang & Zhou (2014; study 2)

Goal Orientation & Work Effort Amundsen& Martinsen (2015; study 1)

(3 samples) Humborstad et al. (2014)
S. Lee et al. (2016)
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 56

(continued)
Outcomes Name of studies
Psychological Empowerment Albrecht & Andreetta (2011)
(25 samples) Amundsen& Martinsen (2014b)
Amundsen& Martinsen (2015; study 1)
Amundsen& Martinsen (2015; study 2)
Auh et al. (2014)
Boudrias et al. (2009)
Chen et al. (2007)
Chen et al. (2011)
Dahinten et al. (2014)
Dewettinck & Ameijde (2011)
Fong & Snape (2015)
Kim & Beehr (2017)
Konczak et al. (2000)
Kwak (2011)
Li et al. (2014)
Lorinkova & Perry (2014)
Namasivayam et al. (2014)
Randolph & Kemery (2011)
Raub & Robert (2010)
Raub & Robert (2013)
Sumpter et al. (2016)
Tong et al. (2015)
Wallace et al. (2011)
Yoon (2012)
Zhang & Bartol (2010)

Role Clarity Gkorezis (2016)

(3 samples) Harris et al. (2014; study 2)
Martínez-Córcoles et al. (2014)
Attitudes
Satisfaction Amundsen& Martinsen (2014a)
(12 samples) Amundsen& Martinsen (2015; study 1)
Amundsen& Martinsen (2015; study 2)
Auh et al. (2014)
Biemann et al. (2015)
Dewettinck & Ameijde (2011)
Fong & Snape (2015)
Kim & Beehr (2016a)
Kim & Beehr (2017)
Konczak et al. (2000)
Namasivayam et al. (2014)
Vecchio et al. (2010)
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 57

(continued)
Outcomes Name of studies
Commitment Albrecht & Andreetta (2011)
(12 samples) Chen et al. (2011)
Dahinten et al. (2014)
Dewettinck & Ameijde (2011)
Fong & Snape (2015)
Harris et al. (2014; study 2)
Hassan et al. (2013)
Kim & Beehr (2016a)
Kim & Beehr (2017)
Konczak et al. (2000)
Namasivayam et al. (2014)
Raub & Robert (2013)

Work Engagement Albrecht & Andreetta (2011)

(4 samples) Kim & Beehr (2016b)
M.C.C. Lee et al. (2017)
Tuckey et al. (2012)

Knowledge Sharing Eze et al (2013)

(2 samples) Xue et al (2011)

Emotions
Emotional Exhaustion & Tension & Bobbio et al. (2012)
Cynicism Cheong et al. (2016)
Lorinkova & Perry (2014)

Performance
Creativity & Innovative Behavior Amundsen& Martinsen (2014b)
(11 samples) Amundsen& Martinsen (2015; study 2)
Audenaert & Decramer (2016)
Chen et al. (2011)
Gkorezis (2016)
Harris et al. (2014; study 1)
Harris et al. (2014; study 2)
Jeong et al. (2016)
Zhang & Bartol (2010)
Zhang & Zhou (2014; study 1)
Zhang & Zhou (2014; study 2)
 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 58

(continued)
Outcomes Name of studies
Job Performance Chen et al. (2007)
(13 samples) Cheong et al. (2016)
Fong & Snape (2015)
Harris et al. (2014; study 2)
Humborstad et al. (2014)
Kim & Beehr (in pressa)
S. Lee et al. (2016)
Luo et al. (2016)
Martin et al. (2013)
Raub & Robert (2010)
Sumpter et al. (2016)
Vecchio et al. (2010)
Yagil (2002)

Contextual Performance Auh et al. (2014)

(13 samples) Fong & Snape (2015)
Gao et al. (2011)
Humborstad et al. (2014)
Kim & Beehr (in pressa)
Li et al. (2014)
Li et al. (2016)
Lorinkova & Perry (2014)
Luo et al. (2016)
Martin et al. (2013)
Raub & Robert (2010)
Raub & Robert (2013)
Yoon (2012)

Withdrawal Albrecht & Andreetta (2011)

(6 samples) Amundsen& Martinsen (2014a)
Chen et al. (2011)
Dewettinck & Ameijde (2011)
Kim & Beehr (2016a)
Kim & Beehr (2016b)
*Other Correlates
Perceived Laissez-Faire Leadership (-) Humborstad & Giessner (2015)
Psychological Ownership (+) Kim & Beehr (2006b)
Meaningful Work & Life Satisfaction (+) Kim & Beehr (2017b)
Thriving at Work (+) Li et al. (2016)
Job Crafting (+) Kim & Beehr (in pressb)
Depression (-) Kim & Beehr (in pressb)

Team Cohesion & Self-Concordance (+) Hon & Chan (2013)

 A META-ANALYSIS OF EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP 59

(+) Tung & Chang (2011)

(continued)
Outcomes Name of studies
(+) Chen et al. (2007)
Team (Organizational) Efficacy and Team
(+) Günzel-Jensen et al. (2016)
Empowerment
(+) Hon & Chan (2013)
(+) Srivastava et al. (2006)

Team Improvisation & Performance & (+) Chen et al (2007)

Creativity (+) Hon & Chan (2013)
(+) Magni & Maruping (2013)
(+) Srivastava et al. (2006)
(+) Tung & Chang (2011)

Interactional Justice Climate (+) Li et al. (2015)

Abusive Supervision (-) Graham (2015)

Knowledge Sharing in Teams (+) Srivastava et al. (2006)

(+) Tung & Chang (2011)
Notes: * = excluded meta-analysis; + = studies show increased levels of the variable (e.g., higher
performance) resulting from empowering leadership; – = decreased levels of the variable
resulting from empowering leadership