Examining the Role of Empowerment Criteria on Employee Performance: A Quantitative Analysis in the Oil Industry
Abstract:
This investigation elucidates the influence of Administrative Empowerment (AEM) on employee performance within the distribution sector of petroleum products in Torbat Heydarieh, Iran, utilizing a casestudy approach to examine the correlational effects of varied AEM factors. A descriptiveanalytical methodology was employed, with data collected through a standardized empowerment questionnaire, administered to the entire workforce as the population of interest. The validity of the questionnaire was ensured through the application of the KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) test and Cronbach's alpha, while regression correlation coefficients were used to confirm the legitimacy of the resultant data. A simple random sampling method was employed, yielding a sample size of 45 participants. The principal outcome of this research suggests a consensus regarding the positive influence of AEM on expertisebased outcomes within the Iranian petroleum product distribution sector. Further, the study identified the workplace environment, morale, organizational belongingness, access to knowledge information, and job skills as the most potent determinants influencing human resource motivation. These elements surfaced as critical, feasible, and interesting aspects of work, and were found to be of paramount importance in the empowerment process.
1. Introduction
Efficiency enhancement stands as a prevalent issue in the pursuit of goal attainment and problem resolution, necessitating the harnessing of employees' maximum potential. Empowerment as a mechanism amplifies the capacity of employees to undertake pivotal decisions without the requirement of upper management approval. Such pronounced enhancements have prompted wideranging alterations in the economic policies and strategies of numerous administrative entities, necessitated by escalating complexity, technological innovation, globalization, knowledge intensity, and heightened competition. A myriad of administrative organizations exhibit substantial proficiency in their goal setting and strategic planning.
Empowerment represents a pioneering approach to ensuring organizational resilience within competitive milieus. Sustained improvement is observed when employees are provided with essential information and entrusted by management to utilize their skills and abilities [1], [2]. Consequently, institutional management should prioritize the execution of concepts such as systematic quality management, competitive advantage, information management, and administrative empowerment, which primarily concentrate on human capabilities to enhance these institutions' alignment with changing parameters and adaptability to evolving needs [3].
In contemporary times, the significance and role of human resource empowerment across various sectors is selfevident, recognized as a potent factor driving societal competitiveness, growth, and economic advancement. Given that human resources are regarded as the most valuable capital and the cornerstone of any organization, skill development and employee efficiency enhancement emerge as highly effective strategies for securing a competitive edge [4], [5]. Information gathered in the literature review section and compiled in Table 1 outlines the findings of prior research on the topic under discussion.
Year  Reference  Selfcontrol experience  Selfimportance  Proficiency motivation  Power motivation  Decisionmaking authority 
1999  [2]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2000  [6]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2006  [5]  
2006  [7]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2008  [8]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$ 
2009  [1]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2009  [3]  
2010  [9]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2012  [10]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2015  [11]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2016  [12]  
2016  [13]  
2016  [14]  
2018  [15]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2019  [4]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2019  [16]  
2019  [17]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2020  [18]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2020  [19]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2020  [20]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2020  [21]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2021  [22]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2021  [23]  
2021  [24]  
2022  [25]  
2022  [26]  
2023  [27]  
2023  This study  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$ 
Year  Reference  Authority motivation  Sharing information  Inner strengths / Human ability  Learning knowledge  Teamwork performance 
1999  [2]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2000  [6]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2006  [5]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2006  [7]  
2008  [8]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2009  [1]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2009  [3]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2010  [9]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2012  [10]  
2015  [11]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2016  [12]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2016  [13]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2016  [14]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2018  [15]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2019  [4]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2019  [16]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2019  [17]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2020  [18]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2020  [19]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2020  [20]  
2020  [21]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2021  [22]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2021  [23]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2021  [24]  
2022  [25]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2022  [26]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2023  [27]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2023  This study  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$ 
Year  Reference  Enhancing their skills  Management layers reduction  Optimization  
1999  [2]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2000  [6]  
2006  [5]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2006  [7]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2008  [8]  
2009  [1]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2009  [3]  
2010  [9]  
2012  [10]  
2015  [11]  
2016  [12]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2016  [13]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2016  [14]  
2018  [15]  
2019  [4]  
2019  [16]  
2019  [17]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2020  [18]  
2020  [19]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2020  [20]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2020  [21]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2021  [22]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2021  [23]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2021  [24]  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  
2022  [25]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2022  [26]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2023  [27]  $\sqrt{ }$  
2023  This study  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$  $\sqrt{ }$ 
As per Table 1, a principal impediment to empowerment is administrators' apprehension of authority and prestige erosion upon the application of empowerment principles. Nevertheless, employee motivation can be bolstered through skill enhancement, empowerment with a motivation to work, delegation of expanded authority, and provision of creative liberty, leading to an uptick in organizational performance. These measures would aid employees in skill development and performance improvement, thereby augmenting the overall institutional outcomes, which aligns precisely with the objectives of administrative organizations. The appeal of employee efficiency governs the extent of organizational success. For the effective utilization of manpower, it is imperative to influence the system's performance holistically by devising appropriate strategies and establishing a congruence between the organization's mission and the needs of its employees. Thus, an increasing number of organizations are currently channeling their focus towards the refinement of plans to empower their human resources. The bedrock of such efforts is the work performance of employees, which should be developed and enhanced to improve institutional outcomes.
A salient finding of this study is the dominant status of Iran as one of the world's leading oil exporters within OPEC, thereby establishing it as a powerful organizational entity with considerable sway over Iran's subsidiary industries. Consequently, a critical rationale for the selection of these participants as the study sample is the examination and promotion of human development and AEM among employees of oil companies and associated sectors. This study scrutinizes all factors that impact AEM, striving to bolster its effectiveness and ameliorate it within a tangible case study situated in Iran.
2. Methodology
The goal of this study is to categorize, assess, and scrutinize the elements that impact empowerment. The demographic under investigation comprises all the employees and administrative personnel of a specific Iranian oil company. A model of team performance is structured around four dimensions of empowerment, with team efficiency serving as the dependent variable. Conversely, the independent variables are represented by criticality, the impact on employees' capability, feasibility, interest, and employees' drive for improvement. Age, educational attainment, gender, tenure with the present team, and ethnicity are accounted for as control variables in the model.
Data were collected through the deployment of a questionnaire, distributed to the pertinent administrative personnel with the request to provide responses and return the questionnaire. A questionnaire, subjected to expert development and testing, encompassing ten factors and 34 questions was employed for data collection. Four criteria – criticality, effects on employees' capability, feasibility and interest, and employees' drive for improvement – were adopted for the assessment and prioritization of these factors. Table 2 elucidates the indexes and parameters. The parameters were computed, and the weightage of each index was determined using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for evaluating the results.
No.  Index  Variable  No  Index  Variable 
1  Participation and working group  I_{1}  6  Recognition and appreciation  I_{6} 
2  Spirits and belonging of the organization  I_{2}  7  Enrichment of jobs and career advancement of employees  I_{7} 
3  Information, knowledge, and job skills  I_{3}  8  Workplace  I_{8} 
4  Definition of goals, responsibilities, and authorities  I_{4}  9  Relationships  I_{9} 
5  Optimization of work processes and methods  I_{5}  10  Trust, intimacy, and honesty  I_{10} 
The criteria  
1  Degree of feasibility  
2  The empowerment work environment  
3  The employees' interest and improvement desire  
4  Degree of criticality 
Participants in the research were employees, managers, and immediate supervisors affiliated with an oil company in Iran. The sample size was determined by Eq. (1).
where, $\chi^2$ denotes the Chisquare value for one degree of freedom at the confidence level equating to 2.125, $S_N$ indicates the threshold sample size, and the population size N is 100. The society adjective percentage is represented by P = 0.5, and the accuracy value is d = 0.05. On applying Eq. (1), the derived sample size is 45.
Empowerment is measured using four distinct criteria for human resource empowerment, along with ten prevalent indicators. The research posits several hypotheses based on the case study and each criterion, with Figure 1 presenting the proposed model. Four hypotheses were selected as a model, as they were considered appropriate criteria for the evaluation of the AEM. These hypotheses and each criterion were developed to underscore and address the research problem, based on the most influential indicators impacting the model. Figure 1 illustrates the four elements of Human Resource (HR) empowerment: work environment, feasibility, criticality, and employees' interest in and aspiration for change. Four primary hypotheses were formulated from these elements, and they are elaborated as follows:
(1) Under the feasibility criterion, organizational indices of morale and belonging have a significant influence on HR empowerment.
(2) Within the work environment criterion for empowerment, the work environment index exerts the greatest impact on HR empowerment.
(3) HR empowerment is significantly influenced by employees' interest in and desire for improvement, as assessed by their information, knowledge, and work skills.
(4) In the criticality context, the organizational indices of morale and belonging significantly impact HR empowerment.
3. Data Analysis and Discussion
The KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) test, a nonparametric statistical approach, was employed for assessing the normality of data within SPSS. Although the spectrum and discontinuity of responses can suggest normality within nonparametric tests, the KS test was utilized to confirm a normal distribution for the questions. The summarization of data involved both descriptive and inferential statistics, as presented in Table 3. The obtained values consistently exceeded the minimum benchmark of 0.7, substantiating the questionnaire's acceptable reliability. As indicated in Table 3, the significance (sig) value was consistently above 0.05, suggesting a normal distribution of data amongst respondents.
Capability indicators  Sig value  
Degree of feasibility  Empowerment work environment  Employees' interest /desire to improve  Degree of criticality  
I_{1}  0.906  0.862  0.751  0.751 
I_{2}  0.767  0.837  0.551  0.551 
I_{3}  0.339  0.404  0.614  0.614 
I_{4}  0.132  0.509  0.633  0.633 
I_{5}  0.393  0.404  0.577  0.577 
I_{6}  0.861  0.765  0.199  0.199 
I_{7}  0.104  0.809  0.344  0.344 
I_{8}  0.778  0.718  0.651  0.651 
I_{9}  0.368  0.542  0.727  0.727 
I_{10}  0.318  0.106  0.507  0.507 
According to Table 3, in all cases, the sig value is more than 0.05, so the data distribution among respondents is normal.
Internal consistency
A pilot sample comprising fifteen questionnaires was used to evaluate the questionnaire's internal accuracy by calculating the correlation coefficients for each question within a given field in relation to the entire field. Both the correlation coefficient and the pvalue were computed for every field variable. pvalues falling below either 0.05 or 0.01 denoted the suitability of the correlation coefficients for that field at = 0.01 or = 0.05 levels, suggesting a coherent and relevant construction of the field for its intended purpose.
Cornbrash’s coefficient alpha
Cornbrash's coefficient alpha, with a customary range between 0 and 1, was employed as an indicator of internal consistency. Higher values denoted a greater degree of consistency. The overall reliability for all items across each section spanned between 0.70 and 0.975, a range deemed high, thus validating the questionnaire's reliability. An expert surv ey was undertaken to validate the questionnaire, and Cronbach's alpha method was utilized for assessing its reliability. The findings are outlined in Table 4.
Criteria  Cronbach's alpha 
Degree of feasibility  0.71 
Empowerment work environment  0.914 
Employees' interest and desire to improve  0.921 
Degree of criticality  0.974 
Correlation test
Correlation coefficients for various variables relative to each other and to four preset criteria were calculated. To discern the relationships amongst variables and the extent of their common variance, correlation coefficients were calculated utilizing the average of the relevant data. The findings are detailed in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9.
Correlation analysis results in Table 5 and Table 6 revealed a positive and significant correlation between all variables and empowerment at a 1% probability level, with the highest correlation coefficient noted for the work environment variable (r = 0.922 **).
I_{1}  I_{2}  I_{3}  I_{4}  I_{5}  I_{6}  I_{7}  I_{8}  I_{9}  I_{10}  Y_{1}  
I_{1}  1  0.677^{**}  0.811^{**}  0.645^{**}  0.677^{**}  0.558^{**}  0.828^{**}  0.669^{**}  0.618^{**}  0.737^{**}  0.843^{**} 
I_{2}  1  0.754^{**}  0.694^{**}  0.637^{**}  0.603^{**}  0.647^{**}  0.854^{**}  0.694^{**}  0.793^{**}  0.867^{**}  
I_{3}  1  0.668^{**}  0.586^{**}  0.578^{**}  0.717^{**}  0.708^{**}  0.616^{**}  0.759^{**}  0.847^{**}  
I_{4}  1  0.819^{**}  0.509^{*}  0.677^{**}  0.859^{**}  0.809^{**}  0.688^{**}  0.884^{**}  
I_{5}  1  0.738^{**}  0.721^{**}  0.726^{**}  0.669^{**}  0.561^{**}  0.834^{**}  
I_{6}  1  0.554^{**}  0.532^{*}  0.390  0.547^{*}  0.681^{**}  
I_{7}  1  0.672^{**}  0.692^{**}  0.631^{**}  0.842^{**}  
I_{8}  1  0.894^{**}  0.793^{**}  0.922^{**}  
I_{9}  1  0.768^{**}  0.864^{**}  
I_{10}  1  0.864^{**}  
Y_{1}  1 
Model  Unstandardized Coefficients  Standardized Coefficients  t  Sig.  
B  Std. Error  Beta  
1  (Constant)  0.537  0.193 
 2.775  0.012 
X8  0.779  0.075  0.922  10.390  0.000  
2  (Constant)  0.019  0.160 
 .118  0.907 
X8  0.548  0.064  0.649  8.560  0.000  
X1  0.456  0.084  0.409  5.398  0.000  
3  (Constant)  0.067  0.134 
 .497  0.626 
X8  0.455  0.062  0.538  7.366  0.000  
X1  0.376  0.075  0.337  4.999  0.000  
X5  0.202  0.067  0.219  2.999  0.008  
4  (Constant)  0.035  0.105 
 0.337  0.741 
X8  0.324  0.061  0.384  5.304  0.000  
X1  0.258  0.068  0.231  3.805  0.002  
X5  0.247  0.054  0.267  4.562  0.000  
X10  0.187  0.054  0.240  3.465  0.003  
5  (Constant)  0.013  0.084 
 0.156  0.878 
X8  0.293  0.049  0.347  5.982  0.000  
X1  0.149  0.063  0.134  2.371  0.032  
X5  0.255  0.043  0.275  5.971  0.000  
X10  0.155  0.044  0.199  3.550  0.003  
X3  0.144  0.044  0.180  3.282  0.005  
6  (Constant)  0.086  0.061 
 1.428  0.175 
X8  0.274  0.034  0.324  8.014  0.000  
X1  0.041  0.050  0.037  .816  0.428  
X5  0.218  0.031  0.236  7.123  0.000  
X10  0.169  0.030  0.218  5.605  0.000  
X3  0.132  0.030  0.166  4.366  0.001  
X7  0.131  0.031  0.165  4.193  0.001  
7  (Constant)  0.115  0.049 
 2.367  0.032 
X8  0.268  0.033  0.317  8.105  0.000  
X5  0.223  0.030  0.241  7.458  0.000  
X10  0.177  0.028  0.228  6.243  0.000  
X3  0.142  0.027  0.179  5.197  0.000  
X7  0.144  0.027  0.181  5.423  0.000  
a. Dependent Variable: X11 




The variables in Eq. (3) include I3 (information, knowledge, and job skills), I5 (optimization of work processes and methods), I7 (job enrichment and career advancement of employees), I8 (work environment), I10 (trust, intimacy, and honesty), and Y1 (empowerment). Based on Eq. (3), these variables can explain approximately 99.2% of the changes in empowerment, with the work environment variable alone accounting for about 84.2% of the changes in empowerment.
Table 7 elucidates the correlation analysis results, which highlight a positive and significant correlation at a 1% level between all variables, excluding diagnosis and appreciation, and the critical variable. This correlation was at its most pronounced in the case of the variable for morale and organizational affiliation (r = 0.880 **).
I_{1}  I_{2}  I_{3}  I_{4}  I_{5}  I_{6}  I_{7}  I_{8}  I_{9}  I_{10}  Y_{1}  
I_{1}  1  0.869^{**}  0.678^{**}  0.581^{**}  0.539^{*}  0.240  0.754^{**}  0.588^{**}  0.688^{**}  0.748^{**}  0.844^{**} 
I_{2}  1  0.739^{**}  0.666^{**}  0.504^{*}  0.323  0.747^{**}  0.632^{**}  0.664^{**}  0.796^{**}  0.880^{**}  
I_{3}  1  0.478^{*}  0.512^{*}  0.277  0.689^{**}  0.610^{**}  0.506^{*}  0.539^{*}  0.767^{**}  
I_{4}  1  0.671^{**}  0.161  0.498^{*}  0.717^{**}  0.842^{**}  0.802^{**}  0.826^{**}  
I_{5}  1  0.374  0.575^{**}  0.663^{**}  0.646^{**}  0.435^{*}  0.759^{**}  
I_{6}  1  0.147  0.408  0.142  0.176  0.407  
I_{7}  1  0.528^{*}  0.668^{**}  0.539^{**}  0.784^{**}  
I_{8}  1  0.799^{**}  0.733^{**}  0.852^{**}  
I_{9}  1  0.862^{**}  0.875^{**}  
I_{10}  1  0.846^{**}  
Y_{2}  1 
In Eq. (4), the variables encompass I2 (Organizational Spirits and Belonging), I3 (Information, Job Knowledge and Skills), I5 (Optimization of Work Processes and Methods), I6 (Recognition and Appreciation), I9 (Communication), and Y2 (Criticality). The variables identified in Eq. (4) account for approximately 98.9% of critical changes. The variable of organizational morale and belonging was found to have the most significant impact, explaining approximately 76.2% of the critical changes.
The results of correlation analysis presented in Table 8 demonstrate that all indicators (variables) are positively and significantly related to feasibility at the 1% level. The highest value of this correlation is associated with the variable of morale and organizational affiliation (r = 0.901 **).
I_{1}  I_{2}  I_{3}  I_{4}  I_{5}  I_{6}  I_{7}  I_{8}  I_{9}  I_{10}  Y_{1}  
I_{1}  1  0.859^{**}  0.671^{**}  0.538^{*}  0.694^{**}  0.596^{**}  0.687^{**}  0.769^{**}  0.678^{**}  0.755^{**}  0.875^{**} 
I_{2}  1  0.695^{**}  0.498^{*}  0.711^{**}  0.533^{*}  0.782^{**}  0.794^{**}  0.749^{**}  0.826^{**}  0.901^{**}  
I_{3}  1  0.252  0.765^{**}  0.596^{**}  0.732^{**}  0.665^{**}  0.634^{**}  0.474^{*}  0.798^{**}  
I_{4}  1  0.565^{**}  0.340  0.602^{**}  0.528^{**}  0.664^{**}  0.502^{*}  0.654^{**}  
I_{5}  1  0.610^{**}  0.783^{**}  0.771^{**}  0.785^{**}  0.556^{*}  0.879^{**}  
I_{6}  1  0.624^{**}  0.633^{**}  0.388  0.404^{*}  0.715^{**}  
I_{7}  1  0.749^{**}  0.676^{**}  0.687^{**}  0.893^{**}  
I_{8}  1  0.730^{**}  0.621^{**}  0.879^{**}  
I_{9}  1  0.701^{**}  0.843^{**}  
I_{10}  1  0.787^{**}  
Y_{3}  1 
In Eq. (5), the variables include I2 (morale and organizational affiliation), I5 (optimization of work processes and methods), I6 (recognition and appreciation), I9 (communication), I7 (job enrichment and promotion of employees), and Y3 (feasibility). According to Eq. (5) these variables account for about 97.8% of the changes in feasibility, with the most significant impact attributed to the variable of morale and organizational affiliation, which alone accounts for about 80.2% of the changes in feasibility.
Table 9 show cases the results of the correlation analysis, which demonstrate a positive and significant relationship at the 1% level between all indicators and the variable of employees' interest and desire to improve.
I_{1}  I_{2}  I_{3}  I_{4}  I_{5}  I_{6}  I_{7}  I_{8}  I_{9}  I_{10}  Y_{1}  
I_{1}  1  0.809^{**}  0.869^{**}  0.720^{**}  0.462^{*}  0.652^{**}  0.802^{**}  0.627^{**}  0.792^{**}  0.790^{**}  0.907^{**} 
I_{2}  1  0.716^{**}  0.695^{**}  0.463^{*}  0.587^{**}  0.588^{**}  0.843^{*}  0.529^{*}  0.739^{**}  0.791^{**}  
I_{3}  1  0.852^{**}  0.534^{**}  0.802^{**}  0.790^{**}  0.722^{**}  0.756^{**}  0.720^{**}  0.936^{**}  
I_{4}  1  0.692^{**}  0.719^{**}  0.687^{**}  0.504^{*}  0.681^{**}  0.496^{*}  0.861^{**}  
I_{5}  1  0.352^{*}  0.467^{*}  0.295^{*}  0.586^{**}  0.344^{*}  0.652^{**}  
I_{6}  1  0.805^{**}  0.774^{**}  0.687^{**}  0.635^{**}  0.832^{**}  
I_{7}  1  0.675^{**}  0.811^{**}  0.592^{**}  0.877^{**}  
I_{8}  1  0.756^{**}  0.659^{**}  0.772^{**}  
I_{9}  1  0.655^{**}  0.881^{**}  
I_{10}  1  0.779^{**}  
Y_{4}  1 
In Eq. (6), the variables identified are I3 (information, knowledge, and job skills), I9 (communication), I2 (organizational morale and affiliation), I7 (job enrichment and promotion of employees), and Y4 (employee interest and desire to improve). Based on Eq. (6), these variables explain about 98.3% of the changes in employees' interest and desire to improve, with the most substantial impact attributed to the variable of information, knowledge, and job skills, which alone accounts for about 87% of the changes in employees' interest and desire to improve.
Regression test
Stepwise regression was utilized to nullify the influence of ineffective or ineffective variables or indices within the regression model on the empowerment index. The prediction model under seven different scenarios is summarized in Table 9, Table 10, Table 11.
Model  R  R Square  Adjusted R Square  Std. Error of the Estimate 
1  0.922^{a}  0.850  0.842  0.15969 
2  0.971^{b}  0.943  0.936  0.10139 
3  0.981^{c}  0.963  0.956  0.08437 
4  0.989^{d}  0.979  0.973  0.06573 
5  0.994^{e}  0.988  0.983  0.05179 
6  0.997^{f}  0.994  0.992  0.03570 
7  0.997^{g}  0.994  0.992  0.03530 
a. Predictors: (Constant), X8  
b. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X1  
c. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X1, X5  
d. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X1, X5, X10  
e. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X1, X5, X10, X3  
f. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X1, X5, X10, X3, X7  
g. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X5, X10, X3, X7 
Model  R  R Square  Adjusted R Square  Std. Error of the Estimate 
1  0.922^{a}  0.851  0.843  0.18876 
2  0.968^{b}  0.938  0.931  0.12521 
3  0.989^{c}  0.979  0.975  0.07494 
4  1.000^{d}  1.000  1.000  0.00000 
a. Predictors: (Constant), X4  
b. Predictors: (Constant), X4, X5  
c. Predictors: (Constant), X4, X5, X2  
d. Predictors: (Constant), X4, X5, X2, X3 
ANOVA Test
The correlation analysis and stepwise regression results presented in the aforementioned Table 12, Table 13, Table 14 indicate that job security in employees and assurance of their job position (X4) exert the most significant influence on the work environment.
Model  R  R Square  Adjusted R Square  Std. Error of the Estimate 
1  0.901^{a}  0.812  0.802  0.03118 
2  0.963^{b}  0.927  0.918  0.01999 
3  0.976^{c}  0.952  0.943  0.01667 
4  0.985^{d}  0.970  0.963  0.01346 
5  0.992^{e}  0.984  0.978  0.01029 
6  0.997^{f}  0.993  0.991  0.00676 
a. Predictors: (Constant), X2  
b. Predictors: (Constant), X2, X5  
c. Predictors: (Constant), X2, X5, X6  
d. Predictors: (Constant), X2, X5, X6, X9  
e. Predictors: (Constant), X2, X5, X6, X9, X7  
f. Predictors: (Constant), X2, X5, X6, X9, X7, X1 
Model  R  R Square  Adjusted R Square  Std. Error of the Estimate 
1  0.936^{a}  0.877  0.870  0.01005 
2  0.973^{b}  0.947  0.941  0.00677 
3  0.989^{c}  0.979  0.975  0.00439 
4  0.993^{d}  0.986  0.983  0.00368 
a. Predictors: (Constant), X3  
b. Predictors: (Constant), X3, X9  
c. Predictors: (Constant), X3, X9, X2  
d. Predictors: (Constant), X3, X9, X2, X7 
Model  Sum of Squares  d_{f}  Mean Square  F  Sig.  
1  Regression  2.753  1  2.753  107.954  0.000^{a} 
Residual  0.485  19  0.026  
Total  3.238  20 
 
2  Regression  3.053  2  1.526  148.472  0.000^{b} 
Residual  0.185  18  0.010  
Total  3.238  20 
 
3  Regression  3.117  3  1.039  145.942  0.000^{c} 
Residual  0.121  17  0.007  
Total  3.238  20 
 
4  Regression  3.169  4  0.792  183.328  0.000^{d} 
Residual  0.069  16  0.004  
Total  3.238  20 
 
5  Regression  3.197  5  0.639  238.373  0.000^{e} 
Residual  0.040  15  0.003  
Total  3.238  20 
 
6  Regression  3.220  6  0.537  421.165  0.000^{f} 
Residual  0.018  14  0.001  
Total  3.238  20 
 
7  Regression  3.219  5  0.644  516.756  0.000^{g} 
Residual  0.019  15  0.001 

 
Total  3.238  20 


 
a. Predictors: (Constant), X8  
b. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X1  
c. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X1, X5  
d. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X1, X5, X10  
e. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X1, X5, X10, X3  
f. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X1, X5, X10, X3, X7  
g. Predictors: (Constant), X8, X5, X10, X3, X7  
h. Dependent Variable: X11 
4. Conclusion and Future Works
The findings of the KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) test ascertained a normal distribution of data among respondents. Further analysis, specifically correlation coefficients and regression tests, demonstrated the distinct influence of each empowerment criterion on the employee empowerment at the Torbat Heydarieh Oil Company.
The analysis reveals key factors that predominantly impact each empowerment criterion. For instance, indicators like the work environment, optimization of processes and working methods, trust and honesty, knowledge and job skills information, and job enrichment and promotion account for an estimated 99.2 percent of changes in empowerment. Notably, the work environment indicator alone signifies approximately 84.2 percent of these changes.
Criticality criteria encompass morale and organizational belonging, knowledge and job skills, optimization of work processes and methods, recognition and appreciation, and communication. These factors cumulatively account for roughly 98.9 percent of critical improvements. Of these, morale and organizational belonging is the most influential, accounting for 76.2 percent.
Feasibility criteria include organizational measures of morale and belonging, process optimization, acknowledgment and appreciation, connectivity, and career enrichment, which together explain 97.8 percent of potential adjustments. Again, the organizational morale and belonging index is particularly salient, constituting approximately 80.2 percent.
In relation to the interest and desire for development among employees, factors such as job awareness and skills development, communication, organizational morale, belonging, job enrichment, and job promotion account for 98.3 percent. Here, the information, knowledge, and job skills index is the most impactful, explaining about 87 percent of the changes.
The most influential indicators on empowerment, as evidenced by the regression analysis, include workplace environment, process optimization, trust and honesty, job knowledge and skills, and employee enrichment and promotion for the empowerment criteria. The work environment index has the most significant impact. For the criticality criteria, the organizational morale and belonging index is paramount. As for the feasibility criteria, the organizational morale and belonging index is the most influential. Lastly, the information, knowledge, and job skills index is dominant for the criteria of employee interest and desire to improve.
In terms of future work, there is a need to examine the implications of these findings further, potentially through longitudinal studies and application in other organizational contexts. This would serve to both validate and extend these findings, enhancing their potential applicability in a broader context.
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.