Javascript is required
1.
S. B. Yang and S. O. Choi, “Employee empowerment and team performance: Autonomy, responsibility, information, and creativity,” Team Perform. Manag., vol. 15, no. 5/6, pp. 289–301, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2.
N. Page and C. E. Czuba, “Empowerment: What is it,” J. Ext., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1–5, 1999. [Google Scholar]
3.
M. M. Butts, R. J. Vandenberg, D. M. DeJoy, B. S. Schaffer, and M. G. Wilson, “Individual reactions to high involvement work processes: investigating the role of empowerment and perceived organizational support,” J. Occup. Health Psychol., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 122–136, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4.
W. T. Wang, Y. D. Wang, and W. T. Chang, “Investigating the effects of psychological empowerment and interpersonal conflicts on employees’ knowledge sharing intentions,” J. Knowl. Manag., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1039–1076, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5.
D. R. Brown and D. Harvey, An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. New Delhi: Pearson Education, 2006. [Google Scholar]
6.
M. A. Zimmerman, “Empowerment theory,” in Handbook of Community Psychology, J. Rappaport and E. Seidman, Eds., Boston, MA: Springer, 2000, pp. 43–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7.
D. Tjosvold and H. Sun, “Effects of power concepts and employee performance on managers’ empowering,” Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 217–234, 2006. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8.
H. M. Harrim and S. J. Alkshali, “Employees’ empowerment and its effect on team effectiveness: Field study on Jordanian construction firms,” Jordan J. Bus. Adm., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 107–117, 2008. [Google Scholar]
9.
L. M. Smith, M. A. Andrusyszyn, and H. K. Spence Laschinger, “Effects of workplace incivility and empowerment on newly‐graduated nurses’ organizational commitment,” J. Nurs. Manag., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1004–1015, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10.
R. Zeffane and H. A. M. Al Zarooni, “Empowerment, trust and commitment: The moderating role of work-unit centrality,” Int. J. Manag., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 332–351, 2012. [Google Scholar]
11.
T. Nel, M. W. Stander, and J. Latif, “Investigating positive leadership, psychological empowerment, work engagement and satisfaction with life in a chemical industry,” SA J. Ind. Psychol., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2015. [Google Scholar]
12.
M. I. Ukil, “The impact of employee empowerment on employee satisfaction and service quality: Empirical evidence from financial enterprizes in Bangladesh,” Verslas Teor. ir Prakt., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 178–189, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13.
N. Nafari and S. Vatankhah, “Investigating the effect of empowerment on employees’ occupational self-efficacy,” Bull. Soc. R. Sci. Liège, vol. 85, pp. 1434–1447, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14.
S. Mustafa, M. Sadiq, A. Khan, and K. Jameel, “Women Education in Pakistan: Is the Level Enough for Empowerment?,” Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res., vol. 7, no. 8, 2016. [Google Scholar]
15.
S. Chakraborty and S. K. Chaudhuri, “Integrating diverse knowledge bases for empowering local farmers in India,” Ann. Libr. Inf. Stud. (ALIS), vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 147–155, 2018. [Google Scholar]
16.
J. Kansal and N. Jain, “Development of competency model and mapping of employees competencies for organizational development: A new approach,” J. Sci. Ind. Res., vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 22–25, 2019. [Google Scholar]
17.
M. Al-Bsheish, M. bin Mustafa, M. Ismail, M. Jarrar, A. Meri, and M. Dauwed, “Perceived management commitment and psychological empowerment: A study of intensive care unit nurses’ safety,” Saf. Sci., vol. 118, pp. 632–640, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
18.
A. A. I. Asiri, “The impact of administrative empowerment on the performance of King Abdul-Aziz Hospital in Makkah (An Applied Study),” J. Hum. Resour. Sustain. Stud., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 157–184, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19.
A. Batiari, S. R. Al-Taha, and R. Alizadeh, “Investigating the Relationship between ethical factors on job motivation in the employees of North Khorasan Power Distribution Company,” Int. J. Ethics Soc., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2020. [Google Scholar]
20.
M. H. V. Moghadam, M. Mohammadi, and G. A. Bazaey, “Investigating effect of transformational leadership on employees’ and administrators’ satisfaction of telecommunication general department of district 3,” J. Manag. Account. Stud., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 24–30, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21.
J. Khan, M. Malik, and S. Saleem, “The impact of psychological empowerment of project-oriented employees on project success: A moderated mediation model,” Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1311–1329, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22.
A. Mazaherinezhad, A. M. Ahmed, M. Y. Ghafour, O. H. Ahmed, S. Ali, and M. Hosseinzadeh, “A new model for investigating the role of knowledge management system on the mental health of employees,” Kybernetes, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3269–3285, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23.
D. Maiorano, D. Shrimankar, S. Thapar-Björkert, and H. Blomkvist, “Measuring empowerment: Choices, values and norms,” World Dev., vol. 138, p. 105220, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24.
M. Malik, S. Sarwar, and S. Orr, “Agile practices and performance: Examining the role of psychological empowerment,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 10–20, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25.
N. Jamali, H. Razavi, and M. Gharib, “Optimization of propofol dose estimated during anesthesia through artificial intelligence by genetic algorithm: Design and clinical assessment,” Neural Process. Lett., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 3019–3043, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
26.
M. R. Gharib, M. Rasti, P. Danesh, A. Daneshvar, and N. Mohammadyahya, “Analysis of stress and strain of human skull bone in physical injury,” Mech. Solids, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1134–1156, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
27.
N. Jamali, M. Gharib, and B. O. Koma, “Neuro-fuzzy decision support system for optimization of the indoor air quality in operation rooms,” Int. J. Robot. Control Syst., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 98–106, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Search
Open Access
Research article

Examining the Role of Empowerment Criteria on Employee Performance: A Quantitative Analysis in the Oil Industry

mohammad reza gharib*,
najmeh jamali,
sajjad nikkhah chamanabad,
masoud goharimanesh
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Torbat Heydarieh, 9516168595 Torbat Heydarieh, Iran
Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering
|
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2023
|
Pages 96-107
Received: 04-01-2023,
Revised: 05-04-2023,
Accepted: 05-19-2023,
Available online: 06-20-2023
View Full Article|Download PDF

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 case-study approach to examine the correlational effects of varied AEM factors. A descriptive-analytical 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 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) 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 expertise-based 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.

Keywords: Empowerment, Regression correlation coefficient, Workplace environment, Sense of belonging to an organization, Knowledge information

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 wide-ranging 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 self-evident, 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.

Table 1. Literature review of AEM

Year

Reference

Self-control experience

Self-importance

Proficiency motivation

Power motivation

Decision-making 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

Team-work 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.

2.1 Data Collection

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.

Table 2. The variables of indexes and criteria

No.

Index

Variable

No

Index

Variable

1

Participation and working group

I1

6

Recognition and appreciation

I6

2

Spirits and belonging of the organization

I2

7

Enrichment of jobs and career advancement of employees

I7

3

Information, knowledge, and job skills

I3

8

Workplace

I8

4

Definition of goals, responsibilities, and authorities

I4

9

Relationships

I9

5

Optimization of work processes and methods

I5

10

Trust, intimacy, and honesty

I10

The criteria

1

Degree of feasibility

2

The empowerment work environment

3

The employees' interest and improvement desire

4

Degree of criticality

2.2 Sample Size/Population

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).

$S_N=\frac{\chi^2 N P(1-P)}{d^2(N-1)+\chi^2 P(1-P)}$
(1)

where, $\chi^2$ denotes the Chi-square 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.

$S_N=\frac{2.125 \times 100 \times 0.5 \times 0.5}{0.05^2 \times 100+2.125 \times 0.5 \times 0.5}=45.396$
(2)
2.3 Hypothesis

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.

Figure 1. Hypotheses of the study

3. Data Analysis and Discussion

3.1 Criterion Related Validity Data Analysis and Discussion

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test, a non-parametric statistical approach, was employed for assessing the normality of data within SPSS. Although the spectrum and discontinuity of responses can suggest normality within non-parametric tests, the K-S 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.

Table 3. K-S test results

Capability indicators

Sig- value

Degree of feasibility

Empowerment work environment

Employees' interest /desire to improve

Degree of criticality

I1

0.906

0.862

0.751

0.751

I2

0.767

0.837

0.551

0.551

I3

0.339

0.404

0.614

0.614

I4

0.132

0.509

0.633

0.633

I5

0.393

0.404

0.577

0.577

I6

0.861

0.765

0.199

0.199

I7

0.104

0.809

0.344

0.344

I8

0.778

0.718

0.651

0.651

I9

0.368

0.542

0.727

0.727

I10

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 p-value were computed for every field variable. p-values 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.

Table 4. Cronbach's alpha related to the criteria of the questionnaire

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 pre-set 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 **).

Table 5. Correlation coefficients of different variables with each other and empowerment

I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

I9

I10

Y1

I1

1

0.677**

0.811**

0.645**

0.677**

0.558**

0.828**

0.669**

0.618**

0.737**

0.843**

I2

1

0.754**

0.694**

0.637**

0.603**

0.647**

0.854**

0.694**

0.793**

0.867**

I3

1

0.668**

0.586**

0.578**

0.717**

0.708**

0.616**

0.759**

0.847**

I4

1

0.819**

0.509*

0.677**

0.859**

0.809**

0.688**

0.884**

I5

1

0.738**

0.721**

0.726**

0.669**

0.561**

0.834**

I6

1

0.554**

0.532*

0.390

0.547*

0.681**

I7

1

0.672**

0.692**

0.631**

0.842**

I8

1

0.894**

0.793**

0.922**

I9

1

0.768**

0.864**

I10

1

0.864**

Y1

1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 6. The analysis of the coefficients

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

$Y_1=0.115+(0.268) I_8+(0.223) I_5+(0.177) I_{10}+(0.142) I_3+(0.144) I_7$
(3)

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 **).

Table 7. Correlation coefficients of different variables with each other and the critically

I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

I9

I10

Y1

I1

1

0.869**

0.678**

0.581**

0.539*

0.240

0.754**

0.588**

0.688**

0.748**

0.844**

I2

1

0.739**

0.666**

0.504*

0.323

0.747**

0.632**

0.664**

0.796**

0.880**

I3

1

0.478*

0.512*

0.277

0.689**

0.610**

0.506*

0.539*

0.767**

I4

1

0.671**

0.161

0.498*

0.717**

0.842**

0.802**

0.826**

I5

1

0.374

0.575**

0.663**

0.646**

0.435*

0.759**

I6

1

0.147

0.408

0.142

0.176

0.407

I7

1

0.528*

0.668**

0.539**

0.784**

I8

1

0.799**

0.733**

0.852**

I9

1

0.862**

0.875**

I10

1

0.846**

Y2

1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
$Y_2=0.035+(0.277) I_2+(0.314) I_9+(0.131) I_5+(0.133) I_3+(0.1) I_6$
(4)

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 **).

Table 8. Correlation coefficients of different variables with feasibility

I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

I9

I10

Y1

I1

1

0.859**

0.671**

0.538*

0.694**

0.596**

0.687**

0.769**

0.678**

0.755**

0.875**

I2

1

0.695**

0.498*

0.711**

0.533*

0.782**

0.794**

0.749**

0.826**

0.901**

I3

1

0.252

0.765**

0.596**

0.732**

0.665**

0.634**

0.474*

0.798**

I4

1

0.565**

0.340

0.602**

0.528**

0.664**

0.502*

0.654**

I5

1

0.610**

0.783**

0.771**

0.785**

0.556*

0.879**

I6

1

0.624**

0.633**

0.388

0.404*

0.715**

I7

1

0.749**

0.676**

0.687**

0.893**

I8

1

0.730**

0.621**

0.879**

I9

1

0.701**

0.843**

I10

1

0.787**

Y3

1

$Y_3=0.032+(0.264) I_2+(0.133) I_5+(0.141) I_6+(0.214) I_9+(0.178) I_7$
(5)

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.

Table 9. Correlation coefficients of variables with employees' interest and desire to improve

I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

I9

I10

Y1

I1

1

0.809**

0.869**

0.720**

0.462*

0.652**

0.802**

0.627**

0.792**

0.790**

0.907**

I2

1

0.716**

0.695**

0.463*

0.587**

0.588**

0.843*

0.529*

0.739**

0.791**

I3

1

0.852**

0.534**

0.802**

0.790**

0.722**

0.756**

0.720**

0.936**

I4

1

0.692**

0.719**

0.687**

0.504*

0.681**

0.496*

0.861**

I5

1

0.352*

0.467*

0.295*

0.586**

0.344*

0.652**

I6

1

0.805**

0.774**

0.687**

0.635**

0.832**

I7

1

0.675**

0.811**

0.592**

0.877**

I8

1

0.756**

0.659**

0.772**

I9

1

0.655**

0.881**

I10

1

0.779**

Y4

1

$Y_3=0.016+(0.285) I_3+(0.270) I_9+(0.274) I_2+(0.274) I_7$
(6)

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.

Table 10. The different scenarios prediction model-1

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

0.922a

0.850

0.842

0.15969

2

0.971b

0.943

0.936

0.10139

3

0.981c

0.963

0.956

0.08437

4

0.989d

0.979

0.973

0.06573

5

0.994e

0.988

0.983

0.05179

6

0.997f

0.994

0.992

0.03570

7

0.997g

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

Table 11. The different scenarios prediction model-2

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

0.922a

0.851

0.843

0.18876

2

0.968b

0.938

0.931

0.12521

3

0.989c

0.979

0.975

0.07494

4

1.000d

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.

Table 12. The different scenarios prediction model-3

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

0.901a

0.812

0.802

0.03118

2

0.963b

0.927

0.918

0.01999

3

0.976c

0.952

0.943

0.01667

4

0.985d

0.970

0.963

0.01346

5

0.992e

0.984

0.978

0.01029

6

0.997f

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

Table 13. The correlation analysis

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

0.936a

0.877

0.870

0.01005

2

0.973b

0.947

0.941

0.00677

3

0.989c

0.979

0.975

0.00439

4

0.993d

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

Table 14. ANOVA results test

Model

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

2.753

1

2.753

107.954

0.000a

Residual

0.485

19

0.026

Total

3.238

20

2

Regression

3.053

2

1.526

148.472

0.000b

Residual

0.185

18

0.010

Total

3.238

20

3

Regression

3.117

3

1.039

145.942

0.000c

Residual

0.121

17

0.007

Total

3.238

20

4

Regression

3.169

4

0.792

183.328

0.000d

Residual

0.069

16

0.004

Total

3.238

20

5

Regression

3.197

5

0.639

238.373

0.000e

Residual

0.040

15

0.003

Total

3.238

20

6

Regression

3.220

6

0.537

421.165

0.000f

Residual

0.018

14

0.001

Total

3.238

20

7

Regression

3.219

5

0.644

516.756

0.000g

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 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) 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.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References
1.
S. B. Yang and S. O. Choi, “Employee empowerment and team performance: Autonomy, responsibility, information, and creativity,” Team Perform. Manag., vol. 15, no. 5/6, pp. 289–301, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2.
N. Page and C. E. Czuba, “Empowerment: What is it,” J. Ext., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1–5, 1999. [Google Scholar]
3.
M. M. Butts, R. J. Vandenberg, D. M. DeJoy, B. S. Schaffer, and M. G. Wilson, “Individual reactions to high involvement work processes: investigating the role of empowerment and perceived organizational support,” J. Occup. Health Psychol., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 122–136, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4.
W. T. Wang, Y. D. Wang, and W. T. Chang, “Investigating the effects of psychological empowerment and interpersonal conflicts on employees’ knowledge sharing intentions,” J. Knowl. Manag., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1039–1076, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5.
D. R. Brown and D. Harvey, An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. New Delhi: Pearson Education, 2006. [Google Scholar]
6.
M. A. Zimmerman, “Empowerment theory,” in Handbook of Community Psychology, J. Rappaport and E. Seidman, Eds., Boston, MA: Springer, 2000, pp. 43–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7.
D. Tjosvold and H. Sun, “Effects of power concepts and employee performance on managers’ empowering,” Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 217–234, 2006. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8.
H. M. Harrim and S. J. Alkshali, “Employees’ empowerment and its effect on team effectiveness: Field study on Jordanian construction firms,” Jordan J. Bus. Adm., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 107–117, 2008. [Google Scholar]
9.
L. M. Smith, M. A. Andrusyszyn, and H. K. Spence Laschinger, “Effects of workplace incivility and empowerment on newly‐graduated nurses’ organizational commitment,” J. Nurs. Manag., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1004–1015, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10.
R. Zeffane and H. A. M. Al Zarooni, “Empowerment, trust and commitment: The moderating role of work-unit centrality,” Int. J. Manag., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 332–351, 2012. [Google Scholar]
11.
T. Nel, M. W. Stander, and J. Latif, “Investigating positive leadership, psychological empowerment, work engagement and satisfaction with life in a chemical industry,” SA J. Ind. Psychol., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2015. [Google Scholar]
12.
M. I. Ukil, “The impact of employee empowerment on employee satisfaction and service quality: Empirical evidence from financial enterprizes in Bangladesh,” Verslas Teor. ir Prakt., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 178–189, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13.
N. Nafari and S. Vatankhah, “Investigating the effect of empowerment on employees’ occupational self-efficacy,” Bull. Soc. R. Sci. Liège, vol. 85, pp. 1434–1447, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14.
S. Mustafa, M. Sadiq, A. Khan, and K. Jameel, “Women Education in Pakistan: Is the Level Enough for Empowerment?,” Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res., vol. 7, no. 8, 2016. [Google Scholar]
15.
S. Chakraborty and S. K. Chaudhuri, “Integrating diverse knowledge bases for empowering local farmers in India,” Ann. Libr. Inf. Stud. (ALIS), vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 147–155, 2018. [Google Scholar]
16.
J. Kansal and N. Jain, “Development of competency model and mapping of employees competencies for organizational development: A new approach,” J. Sci. Ind. Res., vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 22–25, 2019. [Google Scholar]
17.
M. Al-Bsheish, M. bin Mustafa, M. Ismail, M. Jarrar, A. Meri, and M. Dauwed, “Perceived management commitment and psychological empowerment: A study of intensive care unit nurses’ safety,” Saf. Sci., vol. 118, pp. 632–640, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
18.
A. A. I. Asiri, “The impact of administrative empowerment on the performance of King Abdul-Aziz Hospital in Makkah (An Applied Study),” J. Hum. Resour. Sustain. Stud., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 157–184, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19.
A. Batiari, S. R. Al-Taha, and R. Alizadeh, “Investigating the Relationship between ethical factors on job motivation in the employees of North Khorasan Power Distribution Company,” Int. J. Ethics Soc., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2020. [Google Scholar]
20.
M. H. V. Moghadam, M. Mohammadi, and G. A. Bazaey, “Investigating effect of transformational leadership on employees’ and administrators’ satisfaction of telecommunication general department of district 3,” J. Manag. Account. Stud., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 24–30, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21.
J. Khan, M. Malik, and S. Saleem, “The impact of psychological empowerment of project-oriented employees on project success: A moderated mediation model,” Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1311–1329, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22.
A. Mazaherinezhad, A. M. Ahmed, M. Y. Ghafour, O. H. Ahmed, S. Ali, and M. Hosseinzadeh, “A new model for investigating the role of knowledge management system on the mental health of employees,” Kybernetes, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3269–3285, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23.
D. Maiorano, D. Shrimankar, S. Thapar-Björkert, and H. Blomkvist, “Measuring empowerment: Choices, values and norms,” World Dev., vol. 138, p. 105220, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24.
M. Malik, S. Sarwar, and S. Orr, “Agile practices and performance: Examining the role of psychological empowerment,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 10–20, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25.
N. Jamali, H. Razavi, and M. Gharib, “Optimization of propofol dose estimated during anesthesia through artificial intelligence by genetic algorithm: Design and clinical assessment,” Neural Process. Lett., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 3019–3043, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
26.
M. R. Gharib, M. Rasti, P. Danesh, A. Daneshvar, and N. Mohammadyahya, “Analysis of stress and strain of human skull bone in physical injury,” Mech. Solids, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1134–1156, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
27.
N. Jamali, M. Gharib, and B. O. Koma, “Neuro-fuzzy decision support system for optimization of the indoor air quality in operation rooms,” Int. J. Robot. Control Syst., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 98–106, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Cite this:
APA Style
IEEE Style
BibTex Style
MLA Style
Chicago Style
Gharib, M. R., Jamali, N., Chamanabad, S. N., & Goharimanesh, M. (2023). Examining the Role of Empowerment Criteria on Employee Performance: A Quantitative Analysis in the Oil Industry. J. Eng. Manag. Syst. Eng., 2(2), 96-107. https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020201
M. R. Gharib, N. Jamali, S. N. Chamanabad, and M. Goharimanesh, "Examining the Role of Empowerment Criteria on Employee Performance: A Quantitative Analysis in the Oil Industry," J. Eng. Manag. Syst. Eng., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 96-107, 2023. https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020201
@research-article{Gharib2023ExaminingTR,
title={Examining the Role of Empowerment Criteria on Employee Performance: A Quantitative Analysis in the Oil Industry},
author={Mohammad Reza Gharib and Najmeh Jamali and Sajjad Nikkhah Chamanabad and Masoud Goharimanesh},
journal={Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering},
year={2023},
page={96-107},
doi={https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020201}
}
Mohammad Reza Gharib, et al. "Examining the Role of Empowerment Criteria on Employee Performance: A Quantitative Analysis in the Oil Industry." Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, v 2, pp 96-107. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020201
Mohammad Reza Gharib, Najmeh Jamali, Sajjad Nikkhah Chamanabad and Masoud Goharimanesh. "Examining the Role of Empowerment Criteria on Employee Performance: A Quantitative Analysis in the Oil Industry." Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 2, (2023): 96-107. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse020201
cc
©2023 by the author(s). Published by Acadlore Publishing Services Limited, Hong Kong. This article is available for free download and can be reused and cited, provided that the original published version is credited, under the CC BY 4.0 license.