Empowerment, P-O Fit, and Work Engagement A ... - EuroJournals

European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences 

ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 38 (2011) 

© EuroJournals, Inc. 2011 

http://www.eurojournals.com 

Empowerment, P-O Fit, and Work Engagement 

―A Mediated Moderation Model― 

Takuma Kimura 

Associate Professor, Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan 

E-mail: ktakuma@hosei.ac.jp 

Tel: +81-3-3264-6602 

Abstract 

Recently, researchers have paid much attention to antecedents of work engagement. In the 

current study, we extend the causal model of work engagement by suggesting a mediated 

moderation model. We assumed that structural empowerment and P-O fit interact to 

enhance work engagement via psychological empowerment. That is, (1) structural 

empowerment enhance psychological empowerment, (2) in this process, P-O fit functions 

as a moderator; the influence of structural empowerment on psychological empowerment is 

larger when one experience high level of P-O fit, (3) psychological empowerment works as 

a mediator; psychological empowerment, enhanced by interaction of structural 

empowerment and P-O fit, lead to higher level of work engagement. 

We tested our hypotheses in a sample of 290 sales managers and sales supervisors 

of Japanese companies. Our results indicated that both structural empowerment and P-O fit 

have positive effects on work engagement via psychological empowerment, and that P-O 

fit functions as a moderator, that is, structural empowerment and P-O fit interacts to 

enhance work engagement via psychological empowerment. 

Our findings extend the causal model of work engagement and integrate literatures 

of engagement and those of empowerment. In the last part of this article, we discuss 

limitations of our research, and directions for future research. 

Keywords: Wok Engagement, Structural Empowerment, Psychological Empowerment, 

Person-organisation Fit (P-O fit) 

1. Introduction 

During the past decade, work engagement has attracted much attention of academic researchers and 

practitioners. According to Schaufeli et al, (2002), engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related 

state of mind that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption. The reason why work 

engagement has been regarded as important is that, it contributes to various positive work outcomes 

and improves organisation performance. Indeed, empirical researches have revealed that work 

engagement predicts high level of organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance 

(Hakanen et al, 2006; Koyuncu et al, 2006; Salanova et al, 2005). Therefore, recently, identifying 

antecedents of work engagement has drawn much attention from researchers. 

The most widely used theoretical basis for studying the antecedents of work engagement is the 

Job-Demand–Resource (JD–R) model (Demerouti et al, 2001). This model assumed that job 

environments can usually divided into two categories: job demands and job resources. Job demands 

refer to those physical, social, or organisational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or 

mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and psychological costs. Job

45 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 38 (2011) 

resources, on the other hand, refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organisational aspects of 

the job that may do any of the following: (a) be functional in achieving work goals; (b) reduce job 

demands at the associated physiological and psychological costs; (c) stimulate personal growth and 

development (Demerouti et al, 2001). 

The JD-R model suggested that providing job resources with employees can enhance their work 

engagement. Empirical researches support this model, suggesting that job resources predict work 

engagement (Hakanen et al, 2005; Hakanen et al, 2008; Mauno et al, 2007; Salanova & Schaufeli, 

2008; Schaufeli et al, 2009). Job resources examined in previous studies were social support, job 

autonomy, performance feedback, and so on. 

However, empirical studies have not examined the effect of person-organisation fit (P-O fit) on 

work engagement. P-O fit is defined as the congruence between patterns of organisational values and 

patterns of individual values, and is considered to be a meaningful way of assessing person-situation 

interaction because values are fundamental and relatively enduring and because individual and 

organisational values can be directly compared (Chatman, 1991). To date, many empirical studies have 

found significant relationships between P-O fit and work attitudes. Therefore, in this study, we intend 

to extend the causal model of work engagement by including P-O fit. 

Another purpose of this study is to integrate the studies of work engagement and 

empowerment. Empowerment is a noticeable motivational construct in recent literature, and 

researchers begin to pay attention to the relationship between engagement and empowerment 

(Laschinger, et al, 2009). However, this relationship has not been sufficiently investigated in empirical 

studies. And to the best of our knowledge, no empirical research examined the causal relationship 

between P-O fit and these two construct (i.e. work engagement, and empowerment). Thus, we analyse 

a mediated moderation model consists of engagement, empowerment, and P-O fit. 

This article consists of five parts. First, we review previous researches to suggest the theoretical 

framework for our mediated moderation model. Second, we suggest research hypotheses. Next, we 

explain the sample design, research procedure, construct measurement, and the method of statistical 

analysis. Then, we report the results of this study. Lastly, we summarise our findings, discuss the 

limitations of the study, and offer suggestions for future research. 

2. Previous Research 

2.1. Empowerment 

In the past decades, “empowerment” has received considerable scholarly attention as a construct that 

can enhance managerial efficiency and employees’ satisfaction. Conger and Kanungo (1988) define 

empowerment as “a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organisational members 

through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both 

formal organisational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information.” Conger 

and Kanungo viewed empowerment as a motivational construct, which is an enabling rather than a 

delegating process. 

Organizational researchers have distinguished between two major constructs of empowerment: 

structural empowerment and psychological empowerment. Structural empowerment is defined as a 

practice, or set of practices to offer access to information, resources, support and opportunity to learn in 

the work environment (Kanter, 1993). 

Psychological empowerment is defined as a motivational construct manifested in four 

cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995). According to 

Spreitzer, these four cognitions reflect an active, rather than a passive, orientation to a work role. Some 

theorists have considered that psychological empowerment is similar or relevant construct to intrinsic 

motivation. For example, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) posited that psychological empowerment is 

presumed to be a proximal cause of intrinsic task motivation.


Theoretically, structural empowerment contributes to strengthen psychological empowerment 

(Kanter, 1993). Whereas structural empowerment is the presence or absence of empowering conditions 

in the workplace, psychological empowerment is the employees’ psychological interpretation or 

reaction to these conditions. That is, psychological empowerment represents a reaction of employees to 

structural empowerment conditions (Laschinger et al, 2004). Therefore, it is rational to assume that 

structural empowerment is the main predictor of psychological empowerment. In fact, results of 

previous researches supported the positive relationship between structural empowerment and 

psychological empowerment (Spreizer, 1996; Laschinger et al, 2001, 2004). 

Spreitzer (1996) examined the relationships between social structural characteristics at the level 

of the work unit and perceptions of empowerment. Spreitzer found that a work environment such as 

little role ambiguity, strong sociopolitical support, access to information, and participative unit climate, 

is positively related to psychological empowerment. Laschinger et al, (2001) reveal that practices of 

structural empowerment heightened the level of psychological empowerment. Laschinger et al, (2004) 

also found that perceptions of structural empowerment produced statistically significant change in 

psychological empowerment. 

2.2. Work Engagement 

Engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by 

vigour, dedication, and absorption. Rather than a momentary and specific state, engagement refers to a 

more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, 

event, individual, or behaviour (Schaufeli et al, 2002). 

Salanova and Schaufeli (2008) argued that work engagement covers the basic dimensions of 

intrinsic motivation, which ensures goal oriented behaviour and persistence in attaining objectives 

along with high levels of activation (i.e. vigour) as well as feeling enthusiastic, identifying with and 

being and proud of one’s job (i.e. dedication). Therefore, work engagement might be considered as a 

part of intrinsic motivation. 

Recently, many empirical studies have shown that work engagement has positive relationship 

with organisational performance. For example, Salanova et al, (2003) revealed that engagement has a 

positive effect on group task performance. Salanova et al, (2005) found that engaging employees 

improve service climate, and then enhance customer-assessed employee performance. Therefore, 

identifying antecedents of work engagement has begun to drawn much attention in the literature. 

In the studies on antecedents of work engagement, the most popular theoretical model is job 

demand-resource model (JD-R model). The JD-R model assumes two processes. In the first process, 

demanding aspects of work (i.e. extreme job demands) lead to constant overtaxing, and in the end, to 

exhaustion. In the second process, a lack of resources complicates the meeting of the job demands, 

which further leads to withdrawal behaviour. The long-term consequence of this withdrawal is 

disengagement from work (Demerouti et al, 2001). 

Many empirical studies of the JD-R model supported the assumption of the model, showing 

that job resources are positively related to work engagement (e.g. Hakanen et al, 2005; Llorens et al, 

2006; Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). 

Although, some empirical researches found a negative relationship between job demands and 

work engagement (e.g. Hakanen et al, 2006), theorists have become to consider that job resources have 

larger effects in predicting work engagement than job demands. Mauno et al, (2007) examined the 

effect of job demands and job resources as antecedents of work engagement, and revealed that job 

resources are more robust determinants of work engagement than job demands. Moreover, other 

studies showed that there is no significant relationship between job demands and work engagement 

(Bakker et al, 2005; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Sonnentag, 2003). On the basis of these recent studies, 

we can consider job resources as key antecedents of work engagement. 

Job resources refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organisational aspects of the job 

that may do any of the following: (a) be functional in achieving work goals, (b) reduce job demands at


the associated physiological and psychological costs, (c) stimulate personal growth and development 

(Demerouti et al, 2001). Bakker and Demerouti (2007) argued that job resources may be located at the 

level of the organisation at large (e.g. pay, career opportunities, job security), the interpersonal and 

social relations (e.g. supervisor and co-worker support, team climate), the organisation of work (e.g. 

role clarity, participation in decision making), and at the level of the task (e.g. skill variety, task 

identity, task significance, autonomy, performance feedback). 

Laschinger et al, (2009) argued that job resources are conceptually similar to Kanters’ notion of 

empowering structures. Kanter (1977, 1993) conceptualizes structural empowerment as the presence of 

social structures in the workplace that enable employees to accomplish their work in meaningful ways. 

According to Kanter (1977), power is the ability to mobilize human and material resources to 

accomplish work, and is gained from access to the necessary information, support and resources in the 

work setting (Laschinger et al, 2009). 

Based on Kanter’s empowerment theory, Laschinger et al, (2001) developed a measure of 

structural empowerment, named “The Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire (CWEQ)”, 

and confirmed that structural empowerment measured by CWEQ, predicted psychological 

empowerment. Laschinger et al, (2009) pointed out the similarity between job resources and Kanter’s 

notion of empowering structures, and found that structural empowerment (measured by the CWEQ-II: 

a modification of the CWEQ) predicts work engagement. Therefore, we can assume that structural 

empowerment contributes to heighten work engagement. 

2.3. Person-Organization Fit (P-O fit) 

Person-organisation fit (P-O fit) is defined as the degree to which individual’s skills, needs, values, and 

personality match job requirements (Bretz & Judge, 1994). Gregory et al, (2010) suggested that, in a 

broad sense, P-O fit can be viewed as the compatibility between the unique qualities of the individual 

worker and those of the overall organisation in which he or she works. 

Since Chatman’s (1989) seminal theory of P-O fit, which focused primarily on values, value 

congruence became widely accepted as the defining operationalization of P-O fit (Kristof-Brown, 

2005). Individual values within an organisation are relatively enduring beliefs that a specific mode of 

conduct or end-state is preferable to its opposite (Chatman, 1991). Thus, values guide actions, 

attitudes, and judgments beyond immediate goals to more ultimate goals (Chatman, 1991; Rokeach, 

1973). 

Results of empirical researches have revealed that P-O fit has significant effects on worker’s 

attitudes and behaviours such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment, intent to turnover, and 

task performance (Boxx et al, 1991; Chatman, 1991; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown et al, 

2005; Verquer et al, 2003; Wheeler et al, 2007). As mentioned earlier, both psychological 

empowerment and work engagement are similar or relevant constructs to intrinsic motivation. 

Therefore, we can assume that P-O fit results in high level of psychological empowerment and work 

engagement. 

Gregory et al, (2010) examined a causal model which assumed that P-O fit predicts 

psychological empowerment, and psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between P–O 

fit and in-role performance, as well as between P–O fit and job satisfaction. Their results supported the 

hypothesized relationship among these constructs. However, structural empowerment is not included in 

their analysis. As mentioned earlier, previous researches revealed that structural empowerment is a key 

antecedent of psychological empowerment. 

However, structural empowerment may not be a sufficient condition for psychological 

empowerment nor work engagement. Even employees with enough resources and structurally 

empowered may not be able to experience high level of motivation if job requirements do not match 

their needs, values, and personality. Therefore, we expect that P-O fit is a necessary condition for 

structural empowerment to enhance work engagement. More specifically, we assume that the positive


effect of structural empowerment on work engagement is stronger among individuals high rather than 

low in P-O fit. 

According to Thomas and Velthouse (1990), empowerment can be considered as increased 

intrinsic task motivation. Thus, we expect that P-O fit by combined with structural empowerment, 

enhance psychological empowerment. If structural empowerment, as suggested by Spreitzer (1996), is 

a main predictor of psychological empowerment, P-O fit is thought to function as a moderator of the 

effect of structural empowerment on psychological empowerment. 

2.4. Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment 

Although, both work engagement and psychological empowerment represent intrinsic motivation, there 

are only a few empirical researches that examine how these two construct are related. Greco et al, 

(2006) found that leader empowering behaviours predict psychological empowerment, and then, result 

in lower the level of burnout. Burnout has been assumed to be the opposite of engagement (Maslach et 

al, 2001). Some empirical studies supported this assumption, by finding the negative relationship 

between work engagement and burnout (e.g. González-Romá, 2006; Schaufeli et al, 2002). Therefore, 

we can say that the findings of Greco et al, (2006) provide the indirect evidence that psychological 

empowerment predicts work engagement. 

More direct evidence was provided by the study of Stander and Rothmann (2010). They 

empirically examined the relationship between work engagement and psychological empowerment, 

and found that psychological empowerment predicts work engagement. On the basis of these previous 

studies, we can assume that psychological empowerment will predict work engagement. And, 

psychological empowerment may play a mediating role between structural empowerment and P-O fit 

with work engagement. 

3. Hypotheses 

Based on the discussion above, we assume that structural empowerment and P-O fit interact to enhance 

work engagement via psychological empowerment. That is, (1) structural empowerment enhances 

psychological empowerment, (2) in this process, P-O fit functions as a moderator; the influence of 

structural empowerment on psychological empowerment is larger when one experience high level of P- 

O fit, (3) psychological empowerment works as a mediator; psychological empowerment, enhanced by 

interaction of structural empowerment and P-O fit, leads to higher level of work engagement. Figure 1 

presents our hypothesized model. 

Structural 

Empowerment 

Figure 1: Hypothesized mediated moderation model 

P-O fit 

Psychological 

Empowerment 

Work 

Engagement 

On the basis of Muller et al.’s (2005) approach for mediated moderation analysis, we test the 

following hypotheses to examine this model.


H1: Structural empowerment is positively related to work engagement. 

H2: P-O fit is positively related to work engagement. 

H3: P-O fit moderates the relationship between structural empowerment and work engagement. 

H4: Structural empowerment is positively related to psychological empowerment. 

H5: P-O fit is positively related to psychological empowerment. 

H6: P-O fit moderates the relationship between structural empowerment and psychological 

empowerment. 

H7: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between structural empowerment 

and work engagement. 

H8: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between P-O fit and work 

engagement. 

H9: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between interaction of structural 

empowerment and P-O fit with work engagement. 

4. Research Method 

4.1. Participants and Procedure 

Participants were sales managers and sales supervisors working in Japanese companies. They were 

registered members of an online research program administered by a research institution in Japan. 

From those members, we selected people who satisfied the condition of our survey (i.e. sales manager 

or sales supervisor, and tenure is three years or longer). In all, 290 members answered the 

questionnaire. 

This survey was conducted by online questionnaire. Participants accessed the URL of the 

questionnaire. To ensure anonymousness and confidentiality, each response data were automatically 

collected and converted into a Comma Separated Values (CSV) data. In this collection and conversion 

process, participants’ name or any identifying information were not recorded 

All of them were men, which reflected Japanese present situation that over 90 per cent of 

management position is occupied by male workers, and over 40 per cent of firms assign only male 

workers to sales divisions (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan, 2008). Participants were 

required to be currently employed and employed at the same firm for three years or longer before 

participation. The participants’ age ranged from 30 to 63 years (M = 47.1 years, SD = 6.4 years). All 

participants are Japanese. 

4.2. Hypotheses Testing: Measures 

4.2.1. Structural Empowerment 

We measured structural empowerment using The CWEQ-II (Conditions of Work Effectiveness 

Questionnaire-II; Laschinger et al, 2001). CWEQ-II consists of nineteen items measuring six 

components of structural empowerment (opportunity, information, support, resources, formal power, 

and informal power) described by Kanter (1977, 1993), and two-item global empowerment scale. 

Among these, we use the former nineteen items. 

Originally, CWEQ-II was developed for measuring work conditions of staff nurses. Thus, we 

need to change some of the word used in these items. For example, we used “firm” instead of 

“hospital”, and “customer” instead of “patient”. The scale uses a five-point Likert-type scale (1= 

“Non” to 5= “A lot”). Examples of items include; “The chance to gain new skills and knowledge on 

the job,” “The values of top management,” “Specific information about things you do well,” and “Time 

available to accomplish job requirements.” To investigate internal consistency reliability, we use 

Cronbach’s alpha. Values of Cronbach’s alpha exceeded the value of .80 is now considered a generally 

accepted standard of internal consistency reliability (Henson, 2001). The Cronbach’s alpha for scores 

on this scale was .88.


4.2.2. Psychological Empowerment 

Psychological empowerment experienced by participants was measured by a twelve-item scale 

developed by Spreitzer (1995). This scale measured four dimensions of psychological empowerment 

(meaning, competency, self-determination, and impact) using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1= 

“strongly disagree” to 7= “strongly agree”. 

Examples of items include “The work I do is very important to me,” “I am confident about my 

ability to do my job,” “I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job,” “My impact on 

what happens in my department is large.” Cronbach’s alpha for scores on this scale was .93. 

4.2.3. Person-Organization Fit 

P-O fit was measured by a four-item scale developed by Saks and Ashforth (2002). The scale uses a 

five-point Likert-type scale (1= “to a very little extent” to 5= “to a very large extent”). A sample item 

from this scale was “To what extent are the values of the organisation similar to your own values?” 

Cronbach’s alpha for scores on this scale was .92. 

4.2.4. Work Engagement 

Work engagement was measured by the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale 

(UWES-J). UWES-J was developed by Shimazu et al, (2008) based on the original Utrecht Work 

Engagement Scale (UWES: Schaufeli et al, 2002). 

UWES-J is a seventeen-item scale consists of vigour (six items), dedication (five items), and 

absorption (six items). Participants responded on a 7-point scale that ranged from 1 (never) to 7 

(always). Examples of items include; “At my work, I feel bursting with energy.” (vigour), “I am 

enthusiastic about my job.” (dedication), “Time flies when I am working.” (absorption). The 

Cronbach’s alpha for scores on this scale was. 95. 

4.2.5. Control Variables 

In addition to the four construct (structural empowerment, P-O fit, psychological empowerment, work 

engagement), we included age and “firm’s performance trend”. We collected this survey data in 2008, 

when many Japanese firms suffered from deterioration in performance due to the economic downturn 

caused by Lehman Shock. Therefore, during this period, employees in Japanese firms might be much 

concerned about their firm’s performance. Thus, we presume that work attitudes of them might be 

sensitively influenced by their perceptions of firm’s performance trend. 

4.3. Hypotheses Testing: Analysis 

We conducted multiple regression analysis to test our hypothesis. To examine the mediated 

moderation, we adopted Baron and Kenny’s (1986) framework for mediation analysis and the approach 

of Muller et al, (2005) for mediated moderation analysis. We use a three-step analysis. 

In step one, we examine if the independent variables and their interaction predict the dependent 

variable. In step two, we examine if the independent variables and their interaction predict the 

mediator. If, and only if, hypotheses are supported in step one and step two, we proceed to step three 

and step four. If hypotheses are not supported in step one and step two, we can conclude that assumed 

mediated moderation relationships does not exist, and the analysis should stop there. 

In step three and step four, we conduct a hierarchical regression analysis where independent 

variables and their interaction are entered first, and then, the mediator is entered. If the entering of the 

mediator to the equation reduces the effect of independent variables or their interaction to nonsignificance, 

the evidence of full mediation exists. If the independent variables and their interaction 

remain significant, but less in regression weights when the mediator is in the equation, the evidence of 

partial mediation exists. In the regression analysis, we centred the independent variables before the 

interaction term was computed in order to avoid multicollinearity problem (Aiken & West, 1991).


In addition to these analyses, we conduct Sobel tests to compute the significance of mediation 

(Sobel, 1982). Since Sobel test has been considered to be a very conservative test (MacKinnon et al, 

1995), using this test is helpful to confirm the hypothesized mediation. 

5. The Results of Hypotheses Testing 

5.1. Correlation Results 

We ran two-tailed tests of significance for the correlationship between the two control variables and 

four focal constructs (i.e. structural empowerment, P-O fit, psychological empowerment, work 

engagement). Results are provided in Table 1. Because age was not significantly related to any of focal 

constructs, we eliminate it from analyses below. Firm’s performance trend was significantly related to 

structural empowerment (r=.28, p


Table 2: Step One: Hierarchical Regression Results for Work Engagement 

Constant 

FPT 

SE 

P-O ft 

SE x P-O fit 

F-score 

Work Engagement 

Controls Main Effects Interaction 

B s.e. β B s.e. β B s.e. β 

3.98 

.02 

.14 

.05 

.02 

1.25 

-.15 

.62 

.38 

.09 47.66** 

⊿F-score 

71.41** 

R 2 

⊿R 2 

Adjusted R 2 

.00 

.33 

.33 

.00 

.33 

Note: FPT=firm’s performance trend; SE=structural empowerment 

*p


Table 3: Step Two: Hierarchical Regression Results for Psychological Empowerment 

Constant 

FPT 

SE 

P-O ft 

SE x P-O fit 

F-score 

Psychological Empowerment 

Controls Main Effects Interaction 

B s.e. β B s.e. β B s.e. β 

5.00 

.3 

.14 

.05 

.03 

1.69 

-.14 

.96 

.18 

.0.29 62.97*** 

⊿F-score 

94.22*** 

R 2 

⊿R 2 

Adjusted R 2 

.00 

.40 

.40 

.00 

.39 

Note: FPT=firm’s performance trend; SE=structural empowerment 

*p


Table 4: Steps Three and Four: Hierarchical Regression Results for Work Engagement 

Constant 

FPT 

SE 

P-O ft 

SE x P-O fit 

PE 

F-score 

Work Engagement 

Step Three Interaction 

B s.e. β B s.e. β 

1.13 

-.16 

.66 

.37 

.07 

.31 

.04 

.11 

.07 

.04 

-.19*** 

.36*** 

.33*** 

.09* 

.54 

-0.1 

.26 

.30 

.03 

.39 

36.81*** 42.04*** 

⊿F-score 

41.85*** 

R 2 

⊿R 2 

Adjusted R 2 

.34 

.43 

.08 

.33 

.42 

Note: FPT=firm’s performance trend; SE=structural empowerment; PE=psychological empowerment 

*p


act independently as well as interact to function as promoting factors for psychological empowerment. 

Then, enhanced psychological empowerment leads to increase in work engagement. 

Our study makes two major contributions to work engagement literature. First, we revealed the 

nature of relationship between work engagement and psychological empowerment. Previous researches 

have not investigated the relationship between psychological empowerment and work engagement. In 

our study, we found that psychological empowerment predicts work engagement by mediating effects 

of structural empowerment and P-O fit. 

Second, our study extend the causal model of work engagement by examining the moderating 

effect of P-O fit and mediating effect of psychological empowerment. As suggested by previous 

researches on value congruence (e.g. Meglino et al, 1989; Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly, 1991), a fit 

between organisation and individuals has been considered to be important to engage workers. 

However, it has not been included in previous theoretical and empirical studies regarding the JD-R 

model. This study revealed that, in addition to job resources – in the current study, equated with 

structural empowerment-, P-O fit plays a key role in predicting work engagement. Therefore, we can 

say that our study provides important implications for future researches. 

However, we should note that there are some limitations in our study. First, our analysis was 

based on cross sectional data. In order to reveal the lag effect of antecedents, we need to collect 

longitudinal data. 

Second, participants of our research are limited to male, sales manager and sales supervisor. 

Thus, it is uncertain that our results can be generalized to female workers or people with different types 

of jobs or status. Therefore, we should conduct a similar research on various types of workers and 

examine the generalizability of the results of our study. 

Finally, although neither our study nor previous studies have provided enough evidence that 

enable us to equate structural empowerment with job resources, we did so in this study. Thus, future 

researches should examine the constructive similarity or distinctiveness between structural 

empowerment and job resources. 

References 

1] Aiken, L. S. and S. G. West, 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

2] Bakker, A. B. and E. Demerouti, 2007. “The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art”, 

Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(3), pp.309-328. 

3] Bakker, A. B., E. Demerouti, and M. C. Euwema, 2005. “Job resources buffer the impact of job 

demands on burnout”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10, pp.170-80. 

4] Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny, 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social 

Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations”, Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology 51, pp.1173-1182. 

5] Boxx, W. R., R. Y. Odom, and M. G. Dunn, 1991. “Organizational values and value 

congruence and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion”, Public Personnel 

Management 20(1), pp.195-205. 

6] Bretz, R. D., and T. A. Judge, 1994. “Person-organisation fit and the theory of work 

adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success”, Journal of Vocational 

Behaviour 44(1), pp.32-54. 

7] Chatman J. A, 1989. “Improving interactional organisational research: A model of personorganisation 

fit”, Academy of Management Review 14(3), pp.333-349. 

8] Chatman, J. A,, 1991. “Matching people and organisations: Selection and socialization in 

public accounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3), pp.459-484. 

9] Conger, J. A., and R. N. Kanungo, (1988). “The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and 

Practice”, Academy of Management Review 13(3), pp.471-482.


10] Demerouti, E, A. B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner, and W. B. Schaufeli, 2001. “The Job Demands- 

Resources Model of Burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3), pp.499-512. 

11] González-Romá, V, W., B. Schaufeli, A. B. Bakker, and S. Lloret, 2006. “Burnout and work 

engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles?”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour 68, 

pp.165-174. 

12] Greco, P, H. K. Laschinger, and C. Wong, 2006. “Leader empowering behaviours, staff nurse 

empowerment and work engagement/burnout.” Nursing Leadership 19(4): 41-56. 

13] Gregory, B. T, M. D. Albritton, and T. Osmonbekov, 2010 “The Mediating Role of 

Psychological Empowerment on the Relationships between P-O Fit, Job Satisfaction, and Inrole 

Performance”, Journal of Business Psychology 25, pp.639-647. 

14] Hakanen, J. J., A. B. Bakker, and E. Demerouti, 2005. “How dentists cope with their job 

demands and stay engaged: the moderating role of job resources”, European Journal of Oral 

Sciences 113, pp.479-487. 

15] Hakanen, J. J., A. B. Bakker, and W. B. Schaufeli, 2006. “Burnout and work engagement 

among teachers”, Journal of School Psychology 43, pp.495–513. 

16] Hakanen, J. J., W. B. Schaufeli, and K. Ahola, 2008. “The Job Demands-Resources model: A 

three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement”, 

Work & Stress 22(3), pp.224-241. 

17] Henson, R. K, 2001. “Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual 

primer on coefficient alpha”, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 

34(3), pp.177-189. 

18] Hoffman, B. J, and D. J. Woehr, 2006. “A quantitative review of the relationship between 

person-organisation fit and behavioural outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour 68(3), 

pp.389-399. 

19] Kanter R. M., 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. 

20] Kanter R. M., 1993. Men and Women of the Corporation, 2nd edn. New York: Basic Books. 

21] Koyuncu, M, R., J. Burke, and L. Fiksenbaum, 2006. “Work engagement among women 

managers and professionals in a Turkish bank -Potential antecedents and consequences-”, 

Equal Opportunities International 25(4), pp.299-310. 

22] Kristof-Brown, A. L., R. D. Zimmerman, and E. C. Johnson, 2005. “The consequences of 

individuals fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organisation, person–group, and 

person–supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology 58, pp.281-342. 

23] Laschinger, H. K. S., J. E. Finegan, J. Shamian, and P. Wilk, 2001. “Impact of structural and 

psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: expanding Kanter’s 

Model”, Journal of Nursing Administration 31(5), pp.260-272. 

24] Laschinger, H. K. S., J. E. Finegan, J. Shamian, and P. Wilk, 2004. “A longitudinal analysis of 

the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational 

Behaviour 25(4), pp.527-545. 

25] Laschinger, H. K. S., P. Wilk, P., J. Cho, and P. Greco, 2009. “Empowerment, engagement and 

perceived effectiveness in nursing work environments: does experience matter?”, Journal of 

Nursing Management 17, pp.636-646. 

26] Llorens, S, A., B. Bakker, M. Salanova, and W. B. Schaufeli, 2006. “Testing the robustness of 

the job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress Management 13, pp.378– 

391. 

27] MacKinnon, D. P., G. Warsi, and J. H. Dwyer, 1995. “A Simulation Study of Mediated Effect 

Measures”, Multivariate Behavioural Research 30, pp.41-62. 

28] Maslach, C, W. B. Schaufeli, and M. P. Leiter, 2001. “Job burnout”, Annual Review of 

Psychology 52, pp.397-422.


29] Mauno, S, U. Kinnunen, and M. Ruokolainen, 2007. “Job demands and resources as 

antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour 70, 

pp.149-171. 

30] Meglino, B. M, E. C. Ravlin, and C. L. Adkins, 1989. “A Work Values Approach to Corporate 

Culture: A Field Test of the Value Congruence Process and Its Relationship to Individual 

Outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology 74, pp.424-432. 

31] Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan, 2008. Basic Survey of Gender Equality in 

Employment Management: 2008. 

32] Muller, D., C. M. Judd, V. Y. Yzerbyt, 2005. “When Moderation Is Mediated and Mediation Is 

Moderated”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(6), pp.852-863. 

33] O’Reilly C. A. III, J. Chatman, D. F. Caldwell, 1991. “People and organisational culture: A 

profile comparison approach to assessing person-organisation fit”, Academy of Management 

Journal 34, pp.487-516. 

34] Podsakoff, P. M. and D. W. Organ, 1986. “Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems 

and Prospects”, Journal of Management 12(4), pp.531-544. 

35] Rokeach, M., 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. 

36] Saks, A. M, and B. E. Ashforth, 2002. “Is job search related to employment quality? It all 

depends on the fit”, Journal of Applied Psychology 87, pp.646-654. 

37] Salanova, M, S. Agut, and J. M. Peiró, 2005. “Linking Organizational Resources and Work 

Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The Mediation of Service 

Climate”, Journal of Applied Psychology 90(6), pp.1217-1227. 

38] Salanova, M, S. Llorens, E. Cifre, I. Martínez, and W. B. Schaufeli, 2003. “Perceived 

Collective Efficacy, Subjective Well-being and Task Performance among Electronic Work 

Groups: An Experimental Study”, Small Group Research 34(1), pp.43-73. 

39] Salanova, M, and W. B. Schaufeli, 2008. “A cross-national study of work engagement as a 

mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour”, The International Journal of Human 

Resource Management 19(1), pp.116-131. 

40] Schaufeli, W. B, and A. B. Bakker, 2004. “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship 

with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour 25, 

pp.293–315. 

41] Schaufeli, W. B, A. B. Bakker, and W. V. Rhenen, 2009. “How changes in job demands and 

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

Organizational Behaviour 30, pp.893–917. 

42] Schaufeli, W. B, M. Salanova, V. González-Romá, and A. B. Bakker, 2002. “The Measurement 

of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach”, Journal 

of Happiness Studies 3, pp.71–92. 

43] Shimazu, A, W. B. Schaufeli, S. Kosugi, A. Suzuki, H. Nashiwa, A. Kato, M. Sakamoto, H. 

Irimajiri, S. Amano, K. Hirohata, and R. Goto, 2008. “Work Engagement in Japan: Validation 

of the Japanese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale”, Applied Psychology: An 

International Review 57(3), pp.510-523. 

44] Sobel, M. E, 1982. “Asymptotic Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equations Models.” 

in Sociological Methodology. Ed. S. Leinhart., San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass: pp.290-312. 

45] Sonnentag, S., 2003. “Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behaviour: A new look at the 

interface between non-work and work”, Journal of Applied Psychology 88, pp.518–528. 

46] Spreitzer, G. M., 1995. “Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, 

Measurement, and Validation”, Academy of Management Journal 38(5), pp.1442-1465. 

47] Spreitzer, G. M., 1996. “Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment”, 

Academy of Management Journal 39(2), pp.483-504.


48] Stander, M. W, and S. Rothmann, 2010. “Psychological empowerment, job insecurity and 

employee engagement”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SATydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde 

36(1), pp.1-8. 

49] Thomas, K. W, and Velthouse, B. A, 1990. “Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An 

“Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation”, The Academy of Management Review 

15(4), pp.666-681. 

50] Verquer, M. L, T. A. Beehr, and S. H. Wagner, 2003. “A meta-analysis of relations between 

person–organisation fit and work attitudes”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour 63(3), pp.473– 

489. 

51] Wheeler, A. R., Gallagher, V. C., Brouer, R. L., and Sablynski, C. J. (2007). “When personorganisation 

(mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived 

job mobility”, Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(2), pp.203-219.

Empowerment, P-O Fit, and Work Engagement A ... - EuroJournals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?