THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADER MEMBER EXCHANGE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT: A RESEARCH IN THE SERVICE SECTOR

Abstract

Psychologically empowered subordinates feel more commitment for their organization, have high job satisfaction, low turnover intention and work tension, are more prone to innovative behaviours, high performance and produce solutions. Psychological empowerment; depends on the conditions in the work environment. In work life; the interaction with the leader and the congruence with the organization are like a manifestation of organization for employees. Some research pointed to the complementary or reinforcing nature of leader-member exchange and person-organization fit. However, we need to learn more about the co-action contraption of these two variables. In order to reveal the interaction of leader-member exchange, psychological empowerment and person-organization fit, it was decided to conduct a research in the hospitality sector, in 5-star hotels in İstanbul. The data were collected by surveying 252 employees, which were reached by convenience sampling. Data analysis have done by SPSS 22, Process Macro v3.4 and AMOS 26.0.0. According to the results, leader-member exchange's effect on psychological empowerment strengthens as person-organization fit increases. However, the effect of leader-member exchange on psychological empowerment becomes insignificant when low person-organization fit values are present. Therefore, the contribution of leaders' supportive behaviours to the psychological empowerment of subordinates depends on the subordinates' perception of their values and characteristics are compatible with the organization’s. As it was found that these two variables interactively affect the desired outcomes for the organization, this research is a contribution for the limited literature on LMX and P-O fit.

Keywords

• Psychological Empowerment
• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
• Person Organization Fit (P-O Fit)
• Hospitality
• Tourism

LİDER ÜYE ETKİLEŞİMİ VE PSİKOLOJİK GÜÇLENDİRME ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: HİZMET SEKTÖRÜNDE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Psikolojik olarak güçlendirilmiş astlar kurumlarına daha fazla bağlılık hissederler, yüksek iş tatminine, düşük işten ayrılma niyetine ve iş gerilimine sahiptirler, yenilikçi davranışlara, yüksek performansa ve çözüm üretmeye daha yatkındırlar. Psikolojik güçlendirme; çalışma ortamındaki koşullara bağlıdır. Çalışma yaşamında; liderle etkileşim ve örgütle uyum, çalışanlar için örgütün bir tezahürü gibidir. Bazı araştırmalar, lider-üye etkileşimi ve kişi-örgüt uyumunun, tamamlayıcı veya güçlendirici doğasına işaret etmiştir. Ancak, bu iki değişkenin birlikte hareket etme mekanizması hakkında daha fazla bilgiye ihtiyacımız vardır. Lider-üye etkileşimi, psikolojik güçlendirme ve kişi-örgüt uyumunun etkileşimini ortaya koymak amacıyla, konaklama sektöründe, İstanbul'daki 5 yıldızlı otellerde bir araştırma yapılmasına karar verilmiştir. Veriler, kolayda örnekleme yoluyla ulaşılan 252 çalışana anket uygulanarak toplanmıştır. Veri analizi SPSS 22, Process Macro v3.4 ve AMOS 26.0.0 ile yapılmıştır. Sonuçlara göre, lider-üye etkileşiminin psikolojik güçlendirme üzerindeki etkisi, kişi-örgüt uyumu arttıkça güçlenmektedir. Ancak, düşük kişi-örgüt uyumu değerlerinde, lider-üye etkileşiminin psikolojik güçlendirme üzerindeki etkisi anlamsız hale gelmektedir. Dolayısıyla, liderlerin destekleyici davranışlarının astların psikolojik güçlenmesine katkısı, astların kendi değerleri ve özelliklerinin, örgütün değer ve özellikleri ile uyumlu olduğunu algılamasına bağlıdır. Bu iki değişkenin etkileşimli olarak örgüt için arzu edilen sonuçları etkilediği tespit edildiğinden, bu araştırma LMX ve kişi-örgüt uyumu konusundaki sınırlı literatüre bir katkı niteliğindedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psikolojik Güçlendirme
• Lider-Üye Etkileşimi (LMX)
• Kişi-Örgüt Uyumu (P-O Fit)
• Konaklama Sektörü
• Turizm

Kaynakça

1. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16, 74-94.
2. Bass, B. (1990). Bass and stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications. The Free Press, Newyork, ABD.
3. Boudrias, J. S., Gaudreau, P., Savoie, A., & Morin, A. J. (2009). Employee empowerment: From managerial practices to employees' behavioral empowerment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(7), 625-638.
4. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
5. Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of applied psychology, 87(5), 875.
6. Cable, D.M. & Judge, T.A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions and organizational Entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294-311.
7. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of management review, 13(3), 471-482.
8. Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational behavior and human performance, 13(1), 46-78.

9. David, J. Henderson et al, (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedentsand outcomes, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol: XX, 519.
10. Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of business and psychology, 29(1), 1-19.
11. Derindag, O. F., Demirtas, O., & Bayram, A. (2021). The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Influence at Organizations: The Moderating Role of Person-Organization (PO) Fit. Review of Business, 41(2), 32-48.
12. Dewettinck, K. Singh, J. & Buyens, D. (2003). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Reviewing the empowerment effects on critical work outcomes. Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series, 29.
13. Garson,G.D. (2012). Testing statistical assumptions. Retrieved from http://www.statisticalassociates.com/assumptions.pdf. University of Cambridge (n.d.). Retrieved from https://imaging.mrc cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/FAQ/Simon
14. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
15. Gregory, B. T., Albritton, M. D., & Osmonbekov, T. (2010). The mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationships between P–O fit, job satisfaction, and in-role performance. Journal of business and psychology, 25, 639-647.
16. Greguras, G. J. & Ford, J. M. (2006). An examination of the multidimensionality of supervisor and subordinate perceptions of leader‐member exchange. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology,79(3), 433-465.
17. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., Ray, S., ... & Ray, S. (2021). An introduction to structural equation modeling. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook, 1-29.
18. Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010) Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Educational International.
19. Hancer, M. (2005). Dimensions of the Turkish version of the psychological empowerment scale. Psychological Reports, 97(2), 645-650.
20. In-Sue,O., Russell,P.G., Kwanghyun,K., Crystal,M.H., Jong-Hyun,L., Chang-Goo,H. & Kang-Hyun,S. (2014). Fit Happens Globally: A Meta-Analytic comparison of the relationships of person environment fit dimensions with work. Attitudes and performance accross Asia, Europe and North America. Personnel Psychology, Vol.67, 99-152.
21. Jean-Sebastien, B., Gaudreu, P., Savoie ,A. & Morin, A.J.S. (2009). Employee empowerment: From managerial practices to employees’ behavioral empowerment. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol.30, No.7.
22. Jutras, R. & Mathieu, C. (2016). P-O fit relationships with job satisfaction and turnover: The mediating influence of LMX. Academy of Strategic Management Journal,Vol.15, No.1, 71-84.
23. Kim, T. Y., Aryee, S., Loi, R., & Kim, S. P. (2013). Person–organization fit and employee outcomes: test of a social exchange model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(19), 3719-3737.
24. Koçel,T. (2010). İşletme Yöneticiliği, Arıkan, İstanbul.
25. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person‐organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel psychology, 49(1), 1-49.
26. Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person–environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3. Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 3–50). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12171-001
27. Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person-job fit and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643-671.
28. Kümbül Güler, B. (2015). “Geçmişten Günümüze Çalışma Psikolojisi. Karatahta İş Yazıları Dergisi, 3(1), 1-26.
29. Liden, R. C. & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of management, 24(1), 43-72.
30. Llorente-Alonso, M., García-Ael, C., & Topa, G. (2023). A meta-analysis of psychological empowerment: Antecedents, organizational outcomes, and moderating variables.
31. Locke, E. A. (1999). The essence of leadership: The four keys to leading successfully. Lexington Books.
32. Malik, M., Wan, D., Ahmad, M. I., & Naseem, M. A. (2015). The role of LMX in employees job motivation, satisfaction, empowerment, stress and turnover: Cross country analysis. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), (5), 1897-2000.
33. Münsterberg, H. (1913). Psychology and Industrial Efficiency. Houghton Mufflin Company, Boston and New York.
34. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal of marketing, 61(3), 85-98.
35. Ordun, G. & Aktaş, H. (2014). Lider-üye etkileşimi faktörlerinin liderler ve astlar tarafından karşılıklı algılanması: Bir perakende işletmesi çalışanları üzerinde araştırma. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business Administration,43(1).
36. Saks, A.M. & Ashforth, B.E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 395-426.
37. Shrestha, N. (2020). Detecting multicollinearity in regression analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 8(2), 39-42.
38. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
39. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics ,Vol. 6, 497-516. Boston, MA: Pearson.
40. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of management review, 15(4), 666-681.
41. Turunç, Ö., & Çelik, M. (2012). İş tatmini-kişi örgüt uyumu ve amire güven-kişi-örgüt uyumu ilişkisinde dağıtım adaletinin düzenleyici rolü. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources,14(2), 57-78.
42. Vanlı, O. (2019). The effects of conflict at work on eudaimonic and hedonic well-being of the employees: Psychological empowerment, conflict management styles and trust to supervisor as moderators [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], University of Bahcesehir.
43. Wang, D., Gan, C. & Wu, C. (2016). LMX and employee Voice: A moderated mediation model of psychological empowerment and role clarity. Personnel Review,Vol.45, No.3, 605-615.
44. Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice, Personnel Review,Vol.27, No.1, 40-56.