Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18, No.

4, Summer 2004 ( 2004)

DOES PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT

MEDIATE THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE
AND JOB SATISFACTION?
Sally A. Carless
Monash University

ABSTRACT: This study tested a model in which empowerment was hypothesised

to mediate the relationship between psychological climate and job satisfaction.
Individual levels of negative affectivity were controlled for. The sample consisted
of 174 customer service employees (59% female and 39% male). Support was
found for a model in which empowerment mediated the relationship between
climate and job satisfaction, the dimensions of meaning and competence were
largely responsible for the mediating effects of empowerment. Theoretical and
practical implications of the findings were explored.

KEY WORDS: psychological empowerment; psychological climate; job satisfaction.

In recent years there has been considerable academic and prac-

titioner interest in the topic of empowerment. Empowerment programs
have been introduced in a number of organisations in order to improve
productivity, increase customer satisfaction and enhance competitive ad-
vantage (Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998). According to Ford and Fottler
(1995) “empowerment is commonplace” and usually means giving em-
ployees the autonomy to make decisions about how they go about their
daily activities. To date, the majority of research on empowerment has
focussed on the individual job encumbent’s psychological experience of
empowerment and linking this with various work-related outcomes (e.g.,
job satisfaction, work performance). However, a model that focuses on
individual subjective reactions is, at best, incomplete if it does not in-
clude an examination of the contextual factors that shape those percep-

Address correspondence to Sally A. Carless, Psychology Department, Monash Univer-

sity, PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Australia 3145. E-mail: Sally.Carless@med.monash
.edu.au.

405

0889-3268/04/0600-0405/0  2004 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

406 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

tions (Seibert, Silver, & Sashkin, 2001). Authors on the topic of empow-
erment have emphasised the importance of organisational environment
or context (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1996, 1997; Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990). However, there has been little research that has exam-
ined the links between psychological climate and empowerment. Yet an
understanding of the work context that facilitates empowerment has
important theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, such
knowledge would extend our understanding of the antecedents of em-
powerment, in particular, the psychological appraisals of the work envi-
ronment that are important determinants of empowerment. For the
practitioner, it provides concrete suggestions about the work place that
can be targeted to develop feelings of empowerment. The main purpose
of this study was to test a model that empowerment mediates the rela-
tionship between psychological climate and job satisfaction.

EMPOWERMENT

Two distinct, yet related theories of empowerment have been identi-

fied (Hardy & Leiba-O’Sullivan, 1998; Spreitzer, 1997). These are the
relational approach to empowerment and the motivational or psychologi-
cal approach. The former approach is characterised by practices that
decentralise power by involving employees in decision making. The moti-
vational approach proposes that empowerment is a constellation of expe-
rienced psychological states or cognitions (e.g., Spreitzer, 1995a; Thomas
& Velthouse, 1990). The focus of this approach is on the employee percep-
tions of their individual power to cope with the events, situations, and
people they encounter at work (Stewart & Manz, 1997). The motivational
approach puts less emphasis on delegation of power, instead advocates
open communication, inspirational goal setting, and giving encourage-
ment and feedback to increase commitment and involvement (Conger &
Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse). It is acknowledged that the two
approaches are similar, although the motivational approach is broader
and maybe an outcome of the relational approach (Spreitzer, 1997).
Building on the work of Conger and Kanungo (1988), Thomas and
Velthouse (1990) developed a model of empowerment in which they pro-
posed there are four psychological cognitions that contribute to enhanced
intrinsic motivation. These are meaningfulness, competence, choice, and
impact. Using the Thomas and Velthouse model as a theoretical founda-
tion, Spreitzer (1995a) extended and operationalised this model by devel-
oping a scale to assess the four components of empowerment. Meaning-
fulness was renamed meaning by Spreitzer, and choice was renamed
self-determination. In the current study, Spreitzer’s terminology was
 SALLY A. CARLESS 407

employed. The following is a description of current conceptualisations of

each of these dimensions.
Meaning involves a fit between the requirements of a work role and
person’s beliefs, values and behaviours (Spreitzer, 1995a, 1996). It is con-
sistent with Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) job characteristic model that
proposes an individual feels a sense of meaning when an activity
“counts” in his or her value system. This creates a sense of “caring about
a given task” (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 672). Competence stems
from the work of Bandura (1977, 1986, 1989) on self-efficacy and is the
individual’s belief in his or her capacity to competently perform a task
at work. Thus, the individual believes he or she has the required skills
and abilities and that he or she can perform the task competently. Self-
determination is a sense of choice in initiating and regulating one’s ac-
tions. It reflects autonomy in the decision making processes about how
and when tasks are undertaken. It is similar in meaning to Deci and
Ryan’s (1985) locus of causality. In contrast to competence, which reflects
an individual’s beliefs about mastery of behaviour, self-determination re-
flects a choice of behaviour. Impact is the extent an individual can influ-
ence strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes at work. In other
words, the extent of personal control over organisational outcomes or the
belief that one can make a difference at work.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE

Psychological climate refers to how organisational environments are

perceived and interpreted by their employees (James & James, 1989;
James, James, & Ashe, 1990). James and James proposed that individuals
cognitively appraise their work environment with respect to work-related
values. The appraisal is a reflection of the extent the organisational char-
acteristics are important to the individual and his or her personal and
organisational well-being (James, et al., 1990). Thus, psychological climate
reflects a judgement by the individual about the degree to which the work
environment is beneficial to their sense of well-being.
Psychological climate can be distinguished from organisational cli-
mate (Rousseau, 1988) in that the latter represents a shared or summary
perception that people attach to organisational practices and character-
istics of the work setting (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Organisational
climate is based on individual perceptions of the organisational features,
events and processes. When consensus among individuals exists, the per-
ceptions are aggregated to represent organisational climate (Ostroff,
Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003). The focus of this research was psychological
climate. Psychological climate is important because it is the individual
employees’ perceptions and evaluations of the work environment, rather
408 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

than the actual environment, that mediates attitudinal and behavioural

response (James & Jones, 1974; James, Hater, Gent, & Bruni, 1978;
Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992).
Researchers have assessed an array of psychological climate dimen-
sions, for example: work structure, role clarity, supportive management,
teamwork, decision centralisation and leader goal facilitation (Brown &
Leigh, 1996; James & James, 1989; Kozlowski & Dohery, 1989; Pritchard
& Karasick, 1973). The approach taken in this study was based on the
work of Hart, Wearing, Conn, Carter and Dingle (2000). Psychological
climate was conceptualised as a multidimensional construct consisting
of seven dimensions: (a) role clarity, which is the degree work expecta-
tions and responsibilities are clearly defined; (b) supportive leadership,
that is, the extent supervisors support their staff; (c) participative deci-
sion-making, reflects the degree employees are involved in decision mak-
ing about workplace issues; (d) professional interaction, captures the
quality of communication and support between employees; (e) appraisal
and recognition, reflects the extent feedback and acknowledgement is
given; (f) professional growth, is the extent skill development is encour-
aged and supported; and, (g) goal congruence, is the degree of congruence
between individual goals and those of the organisation. Evidence of the
scales multidimensionality was provided by exploratory and confirma-
tory factor analysis. A strength of the Hart et al.’s approach is that it
includes the core dimensions of psychological climate that have been typ-
ically identified in the literature (Kopelman, Brief, & Guzzo, 1990).

PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE AND EMPOWERMENT

Theories of empowerment propose that empowerment is directly in-

fluenced by the work context (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Lawler, 1992;
Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997; Randolf, 1995; Spreitzer, 1996). These theories
imply it is organisational climate that influences empowerment. An al-
ternate approach is that it is individual perceptions and valuations of
the work environment, in other words, psychological climate, that shape
empowerment cognitions. Stated simply, it is the degree to which indi-
viduals’ interpret the work environment as personally beneficial versus
personally detrimental that influences empowered feelings.
The reasoning for expecting a relationship between psychological cli-
mate and empowerment is based on job characteristics theory (Hackman
& Oldham, 1980) and Thomas and Velthouse’s (1990) model of empower-
ment. According to job characteristics theory, core job characteristics
(e.g., using a variety of skills, receiving feedback) lead to three critical
psychological states: experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsi-
bility and knowledge of results. Each of these psychological states was
 SALLY A. CARLESS 409

described as similar to cognitive task assessments that define empower-

ment (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990): Impact was described as analogous
to knowledge of results, Meaning as similar to experienced meaningful-
ness, and Choice as parallel to experienced sense of responsibility.
Thomas and Velthouse proposed that it is the individual’s “interpretative
style” or evaluations of environmental events that influences cognitive
task assessments that define empowerment. Thomas and Velthouse’s
arguments are consonant with James and James (1974) theory that psy-
chological climate is an individual rather than an organisational attri-
bute, assessed in terms of perceptions that are meaningful to the individ-
ual instead of descriptions of the environment. It is recognised that job
and environmental characteristics may be identical for two individuals;
however, their valuations associated with these attributes will differ re-
liably according to individual differences (James & McIntyre, 1996).
Hence, based on the aforementioned theories, it is expected that employ-
ees’ appraisal and evaluations of the work environment will influence
their perceptions of empowerment.
Although, there has been a lack of research on the relationship be-
tween psychological climate and empowerment, there have been a num-
ber of studies on facets of psychological climate and empowerment. Evi-
dence indicates that supportive climate enhances employee involvement
in decision-making (Shadur, Kienzle, & Rodwell, 1999), supportive work
relationships are positively related to empowerment (Corsun & Enz,
1999), change-orientated and supportive leadership is positively associ-
ated with empowerment (Parker & Price, 1994), participative work cli-
mate is a significant predictor of empowerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999;
Spreitzer, 1996), and feedback is a significant predictor of the psychologi-
cal state of meaningfulness (Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992). Research by
Spreitzer (1996) suggests that role ambiguity is a “key contextual factor
associated with empowerment perceptions by middle managers” (p. 497).
Taken together, these studies provide indirect support for the hypothe-
sised relationship between psychological climate and empowerment.

EMPOWERMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION

Job satisfaction is typically defined as the feelings a person has

about her or his job (Balzer, et al., 1997; Spector, 1997). It is an emo-
tional state reflecting an affective response to the job situation. The job
characteristic model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) proposed that critical
psychological states (e.g., experienced meaningfulness, feelings of re-
sponsibility, knowledge of results) influence job satisfaction. Models of
empowerment such as Thomas and Velthouse’s (1990) and Conger and
Kanungo (1988) did not explicitly include outcome variables. However,
410 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

in an extension of their model, Thomas and Tymon (1994) postulated

that empowerment would accrue in higher levels of job satisfaction. They
state “Because the task assessments [i.e, the facets of empowerment]
generate intrinsic rewards associated with the job, they should be posi-
tively related to job satisfaction” (p. 2).
At the team level, Kirkman and Rosen (1999) found support for the
notion that empowerment is positively related to job satisfaction. Spreit-
zer, et al. (1997) examined the relationship between empowerment and
job satisfaction in two samples: Sample 1 consisted of middle-level man-
agers (N = 393) and Sample 2 was lower-level employees (N = 128). In
both samples, Spreitzer and her colleagues found that meaning was the
strongest predictor of general job satisfaction, while impact was unrelated
to job satisfaction. Ambiguous findings were reported on self-determina-
tion and competence. The former was a significant predictor of manager
job satisfaction, but not lower-level employees, the reverse pattern of
findings were reported for competence (it was unrelated to job satisfac-
tion in Sample 1 and a significant predictor in Sample 2).
Thomas and Tymon (1994) with a sample of employees from a re-
search hospital, electronics firm and computer services (N = 164) re-
ported that meaning, self-determination and impact were significant
predictors of general job satisfaction. Competence was unrelated to gen-
eral job satisfaction. Liden, Wayne and Sparrowe (2000) investigated the
mediating effects of empowerment on the relationship between job char-
acteristics and job satisfaction with a sample of 337 lower-level employ-
ees of a large service organisation. Meaning and competence were found
to be significant mediating variables; self-determination and impact
were not. The one consistent finding across the three studies is that
meaning is a significant predictor of job satisfaction; studies of the job
characteristic model have also noted a significant relationship between
meaningfulness and job satisfaction (Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992). On the
other hand, evidence about the relative importance of the empowerment
facets of competence, self-determination and impact is inconclusive.
Thus, an aim of this study was to examine the relative influence of facets
of empowerment on general job satisfaction and present job satisfaction.

Negative Affectivity
The common theme among psychological climate, empowerment and
job satisfaction is that they represent the individual’s psychological per-
ceptions of work related issues. Hence, the most appropriate method of
assessment is self-report data. However, the use of self-report data
raises concerns that the relationships between the target variables are
 SALLY A. CARLESS 411

inflated or biased due negative affectivity. Thus, in this study negative

affectivity was controlled for.
Negative affectivity refers to individuals differences in the disposi-
tional tendency to experience negative emotionality and a negative self-
concept (Watson & Clark, 1984). Individuals high on negative affectivity
have an overall negative orientation towards themselves and their work
environment. It is generally agreed that the terms negative affectivity
and neuroticism are conceptually very similar, if not equivalent (Burke,
Brief, & George, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1990; Watson & Clark).
There has been considerable debate about the relative importance of
negative affectivity in organisational behaviour research. Much of the
debate has centred on whether negative affect biases ratings of job atti-
tudes or whether it has a substantive affect (Spector, Zapf, Chen, &
Frese, 2000). The biasing argument proposes that negative affectivity
distorts self-ratings of work-related variables and tends to produce spuri-
ous correlations. Thus, conclusions may be drawn that are not warranted
(e.g., Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Webster, 1988). Thus, it has
been proposed that the effects of negative affectivity should be partialled
out when assessing the relationship between organisational variables
and job attitudes (Brief, et al., 1988; Watson, Pennebaker, & Folger,
1986).
On the other hand, those who take the substantive perspective ar-
gue that researchers should not control for the effects of negative affec-
tivity (Spector, Fox, & van Katwyk, 1999; Spector et al., 2000; Spector,
Chen, & O’Connell, 2000). The view that negative affectivity has a sub-
stantive effect recognises that negative affectivity may influence an indi-
vidual’s job behaviour (e.g., by influencing job choice) or job attitudes
(e.g., job satisfaction; for a discussion see Spector et al., 1999). Although
Spector and his colleagues (2000) argue the case against partialling out
the variance attributable to negative affectivity, they acknowledge that
it should be undertaken when testing a mediating hypothesis. Similarly,
Chan (2000) recommends that negative affectivity should be included
when examining relationships among work attitudes.
Together these findings suggest that it is important to include nega-
tive affectivity in this study because: (a) an affective variable, viz, job
satisfaction was examined; (b) psychological perceptions of the work en-
vironment, namely psychological climate and empowerment were inves-
tigated; and, (c) I wanted to explore the magnitude of the relationship
between psychological climate, empowerment and job satisfaction with
and without negative affectivity controlled for. Taking this approach ad-
dresses the call for research that teases out the relationship between
job characteristics, empowerment and job satisfaction (Spreitzer, 1996;
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Thus, the main aim of this study was to
412 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

test the model that empowerment mediates the relationship between

psychological climate and job satisfaction. The tested model is shown in
Figure 1. Consistent with the approach taken by Hart (1999) it was pro-
posed that negative affectivity would influence psychological climate,
empowerment and job satisfaction.

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

Questionnaires were distributed to 280 customer service employees
working in call centres and related administrative areas at two private
financial organisations and a public organisation in Australia. Call cen-
tres can be found in an organisation that has a high volume of incoming
and/or outgoing telephone calls. Individuals working in call centres are
involved in telemarketing, providing customer information and selling
goods or services. Questionnaires were sent to employees in the three
participating organisations informing them about the research and that
responses were voluntary and anonymous. One hundred and seventy-
four completed questionnaires were received (response rate 62%), of
these, 102 were female (59%), 67 were male (39%) and the sex of five
respondents was unknown. One hundred and thirty-one (75%) partici-

Figure 1
Model of Psychological Climate, Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
 SALLY A. CARLESS 413

pants worked in call centres and 43 (25%) participants worked in related

administrative areas. The age range of participants was 18 to 59 years
with a mean of 32 years (SD = 9.6 years). Eighty-nine per cent of partici-
pants were in full time employment.

Measures
Psychological climate was assessed by the generic version (Hart,
Wearing, Griffin, & Cooper, 1996) of Hart, Wearing, Conn, Carter, and
Dingle’s (2000) climate scale. The scale has seven sub-scales: Role Clar-
ity (4 item, α = .76), Supportive Leadership (5 items, α = .85), Participa-
tive Decision-Making (3 items, α = .67), Professional Interaction (7 items,
α = .84), Appraisal and Recognition (5 items, α = .86), Professional
Growth (5 items, α = .78) and Goal Congruence (5 items, α = .70). The
response format was a 5-point Likert scale with 1 representing strongly
disagree and 5 strongly agree. Evidence indicates the sub-scales have
good reliablity and correlate as expected with facets of job satisfaction
(Hart, et al., 2000). Because perceptions of psychological climate include
an affective component (Burke, Borucki, & Hurley, 1992), there has been
debate about the extent of overlap between psychological climate and job
satisfaction and whether they are separate and distinct constructs
(Glick, 1984; Parker, 1999; Payne & Pugh, 1976). An advantage of the
Hart et al. scale is that evidence indicates that the overlap between psy-
chological climate and job satisfaction is modest. A sample item of each
subscale is listed in the appendix.
Empowerment was measured by a 12 item scale developed and vali-
dated by Spreitzer (1995). The scale has 4 subscales: Meaning, Compe-
tence, Impact and Self-Determination each of which have three items
(α = .92, .90, .84, .81, respectively). The response was a 7-point Likert
scale with 1 representing strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree.
Job Satisfaction has been conceptualised as a global construct which
represents general feelings about the job as a whole and a multidimen-
sional construct that taps into feelings about particular aspects or facets
of the work (e.g., the work itself, promotion; Locke, 1976). It is argued
that researchers should avoid using a single criterion and match the
level of specificity with the specificity of the criterion to be predicted
(Smith, 1976). Thus, in this study general job satisfaction was assessed,
as well as the facet of satisfaction with the work itself. This was based
on the proposition that level of empowerment would be related to overall
feelings of job satisfaction, as well as, specific feelings about the intrinsic
nature of the work, that is, satisfaction with the task activities, job au-
tonomy and level of responsibility (Balzer, et al., 1997; Locke, 1976).
Two scales from the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Balzer et al., 1997)
were used to measure job satisfaction: Work on Present Job (18 items,
414 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

α = .92) and General Job Satisfaction (18 items, α = .92). The former
scale assesses the extent the job is intrinsically satisfying and the later
assesses general job satisfaction. The response format is Y (“Y”), No (“N”)
and undecided (“?”). Consistent with the recommendations of the au-
thors, responses were assigned numeric values (Y = 3, N = 0, ? = 1). Gen-
eral job satisfaction is a more global construct than job satisfaction that
reflects job-specific satisfaction. It is acknowledged there is considerable
overlap between the two constructs (Balzer et al,), however, because it
is proposed that empowerment accrues in heightened intrinsic motiva-
tion, I was interested in examining task- or job-specific motivation as
well as, general job satisfaction.
Negative affectivity was assessed by the NEO-FFI neuroticism sub-
scale (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This has 12 items and the response format
was a 5-point Likert scale with 1 representing strongly disagree and 5
strongly agree. High scores indicate low levels of neuroticism.
Missing Data. In order to maximise the number of cases the EM proce-
dure for replacing missing data was used. This procedure involves esti-
mating the mean, the covariance matrix and the correlation of variables
with missing data using an iterative process (SPSSX Version 10). The
number of missing data for each variable was small (range 1–5).

RESULTS

Measurement Model
AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was used to examine the fit of a four model to the 12 empower-
ment items, the method of estimation was maximum likelihood. The
goodness-of-fit statistics indicated the model was a good fit to the data:
χ2 = 100.93, d.f. = 48, p < .05; standardised root mean square residual
(SRMR) = .09; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08;
the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .95 and the comparative fit index (CFI)
was .96. Consistent with the findings of Spreitzer (1995) the fit of a sec-
ond order CFA was estimated. The goodness of fit indices indicated that
the higher order model was also an adequate fit to the data (χ2 = 132.86,
d.f. = 51, p > .05, SRMR = .10, RMSEA = .10, TLI = .92, CFI = .94). In or-
der to minimise the number of indicators in the tested model, sub-scale
scores were used in subsequent analyses.
A one factor congeneric model was used to examine the reliability of
the 12 items used to measure negative affectivity. The findings indicated
the fit was poor (χ2 = 197.25, d.f. = 54, p < .05, SRMR = .10, RMSEA = .12,
TLI = .74, CFI = .79). In order to improve the scale, items with squared
multiple correlations less than .40 were iteratively removed. The final
 SALLY A. CARLESS 415

scale consisted of four items (α = .82). The goodness of fit statistics indi-
cated an excellent fit to the data (χ2 = .525, d.f. = 2, p > .05, SRMR = .01,
RMSEA = 0, TLI = 1.0, CFI = 1.0). The correlation between the 12 item
scale and the revised 4 item scale was .88 ( p < .000), this suggests that
the revised scale substantially retains the original meaning of the con-
struct.
The findings indicated that the average intercorrelation between the
facets of psychological climate was reasonably high (r = .61, SD = .06).
James and James (1989) proposed that all emotionally relevant cogni-
tions of work environment reflect a single higher order schema or factor.
Thus, consistent with current conceptualisations and empirical evidence,
the fit of a higher order psychological climate construct was examined
(Brown & Leigh, 1996; James & James, 1989; Leigh, Lucus, & Woodman,
1988). Due to the large number of items used to measure the variables,
subscale scores served as indicators of the latent constructs. The findings
indicated that the higher order model was a good fit to the data (χ2 =
38.01, d.f. = 14, p < .001, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .10, TLI = .99, CFI =
.99). The correlation between general job satisfaction and present job
satisfaction was high (r = .78), thus, subscale scores was used as indica-
tors of the job satisfaction latent construct in the tested model.
Prior to testing the hypothesised model CFA was undertaken to
demonstrate that negative affectivity, psychological climate, empower-
ment and job satisfaction are independent constructs. The fit statistics
of a four factor model indicated the model was a good fit to the observed
data: χ2 = 253.04, d.f. = 113, p > .05, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .09, TLI =
.98, CFI = .98). The fit of a 4 factor model was compared with a one factor
model, the chi-square difference test indicated that the fit of a 4 factor
model was a better fit (χ2diff = 377.07, d.f.diff = 6, p < .001). This conclusion
was supported by the SRMR, RMSEA, TLI and the CFI. The estimated
correlations between the latent variables are presented in Table 1.

Tested Model
The fit of the hypothesised model was (χ2 = 253.19, d.f. = 114, p >
.05, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .08, TLI = .90, CFI = .91). The goodness of fit

Table 1
Estimated Correlations Between the Latent Constructs

Negative Affectivity Psychological Climate Empowerment

Negative affectivity
Psychological climate −.44
Empowerment −.37 .68
Job satisfaction −.43 .60 .88
416 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

indices indicates the model is a good fit to the data. Standardised path
coefficients are reported in Figure 2. With the exception of two pathways
(negative affectivity-empowerment, negative affectivity-job satisfaction),
all of the hypothesised paths are statistically significant. It can be seen
that psychological climate has a strong positive influence on empower-
ment, which in turn, has a strong, positive impact on job satisfaction.
The squared multiple correlations indicate that a high proportion of the
variance of job satisfaction (77%) is explained by negative affectivity,
psychological climate and empowerment.
Although negative affectivity has a moderately strong negative in-
fluence on psychological climate perceptions, it has no direct impact on
empowerment and job satisfaction. However, the standardised indirect
effects indicate that negative affectivity has a modest indirect influence
on empowerment (−.27) and job satisfaction (−.30). Following the recom-
mendations of Holmbeck (1997) in order to test the mediating effects of
empowerment on the psychological climate-job satisfaction relationship
a direct pathway from psychological climate to job satisfaction was
added. The results indicated the pathway was not significant and did
not improve the fit of the tested model (χ2diff = .15, d.f.diff = 1, p > .50). Be-
cause the pathway was not significant the recommended next step of
constraining the pathway to zero was unnecessary. Thus the findings
indicate that the relationship between psychological climate and job sat-
isfaction is completely mediated by empowerment.
The next step was to assess the impact of the inclusion of negative
affectivity in the model. Following the procedures of Williams, Gavin,
and Williams (1996) and Munz, Huelsman, Konald and McKinney
(1996), three models were estimated. First, a model without negative
affectivity in the model was estimated (Model 1). Second, a model with
negative affectivity in the model was estimated (Model 2; i.e, the tested
model). Third, the paths in Model 2 were constrained with the values
obtained in Model 1 (Model 3). The fit of Model 3 was: χ2 = 304.62, d.f. =
116, p > .05, SRMR = .09, RMSEA = .10, TLI = .86, CFI = .88. A compari-
son of Models 2 and 3 showed that there was a significant difference
(χ2diff = 51.43, d.f.diff = 2, p > .001, SRMR .02, RMSEA = .02, TLI = .04,
CFI = .03). This suggests that the including negative affectivity in the
model has a significant effect on the path coefficients, albeit, the change
in values was small (psychological climate → empowerment β = .68; em-
powerment→job satisfaction β = .88).
In order to examine the relative influence of empowerment facets
on job satisfaction multiple regression analyses were undertaken. The
dependent variables were general job satisfaction and satisfaction with
the present job. The advantage of this procedure is that it provides a
more fine grained analysis of the specific components of empowerment
that are important. The results are presented in Table 2. It can be seen
 Figure 2
Standardised parameter estimates for the hypothesized model
SALLY A. CARLESS

Solid lines indicate significant pathways, broken lines indicate non-significant pathways. SL = supportive leadership, PDM = participative
decision making, PI = professional interaction, AR = approval and recognition, PG = professional growth, GC = goal congruence, RC = role clar-
ity, M = meaning, COM = competence, SD = self-determination, IM = impact. N5, N6, N9 N11 represent neuroticism items, Gen = general job
satisfaction, Job = present job satisfaction.
417
418 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table 2
Negative Affectivity, Climate, and Empowerment Facets Regressed
on Job Satisfaction

Present Job Satisfaction General Job

Negative affectivity −.15** −.20**

Psychological climate .10 .16*
Meaning .48*** .46***
Competence −.16** −.14*
Self determination .13 .09
Impact .24*** .11
R2 .58 .50
F 38.48*** 27.70***

Standardised beta coefficients; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

that general and present job satisfaction are significantly related to

meaning (β = .46, t = 6.83, p < .001, β = .48, t = 7.77 p < .001 respectively)
and competence (β = −.14, t = −2.15, p < .05, β = −.16, t = 2.77 p < .01 re-
spectively). The negative beta coefficients of competence suggests this is
a suppressor variable. Cohen and Cohen (1983) advise that in general
suppressor effects are difficult to interpret, thus I chose not to speculate
about the relationship between competence and job satisfaction. Impact
was also a significant predictor of present job satisfaction (β = .24, t =
3.84, p < .001), but not general job satisfaction. Self-determination was
unrelated to job satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

The main aim of this study was to examine the hypothesised model
that empowerment mediates the relationship between psychological cli-
mate and job satisfaction. The results clearly demonstrate that employee
perceptions of their work environment directly influence their percep-
tions of empowerment which in turn, influence their level of job satisfac-
tion. These findings provide empirical support for the proposition that
environmental variables influence intrinsic task motivation (Conger &
Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). There has been limited re-
search on the antecedents of empowerment. This study shows that em-
ployee perceptions of key aspects of the work psychological climate, for
example, leadership style, interpersonal relationships, opportunities for
professional development, and individual-organisational goal congru-
ence, has a strong influence on empowerment perceptions and an indi-
rect influence on job satisfaction mediated by empowerment.
 SALLY A. CARLESS 419

More detailed examination of the facets of empowerment indicated

that meaning and competence were the significant predictors of job satis-
faction. The findings on impact were ambiguous, it was found to be a
significant predictor of present job satisfaction, but not general job satis-
faction. These findings concur with the work of Liden, Wayne and Spar-
rowe (2000) with a sample of American employees. Specifically, Liden
and his colleagues found that meaning and competence mediated the
relationship between job characteristics and present job satisfaction (the
authors used the same measure as the current study).
Of the four components of empowerment, a consistent finding has
been that meaning is a significant predictor of job satisfaction (Johns, et
al., 1992; Liden, et al., 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Thomas & Tymon,
1994). It suggests that individuals who find the work they perform con-
sistent with their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours are more likely to be
happy in their job. Meaningful work is one of three mediating variables
proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1980) in their job characteristic
model and is consistent with theories of person-environment fit, that con-
gruence between an individual’s values and attitudes and those of the
job will accrue in job satisfaction (e.g., Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Holland,
1985, 1992, 1997). In addition, the results suggest that employee’s who
believe they can competently perform their work are also likely to experi-
ence enjoyment at work. It is unclear whether individual perceptions of
control at work (i.e., impact) influence job satisfaction.
A feature of this study was the inclusion of negative affectivity.
These findings showed that those individuals with a negative outlook
were more likely to negatively evaluate their work climate. However,
contrary to expectations, negative affectivity was not found to directly
influence empowerment or job satisfaction. Rather, negative affectivity
indirectly influenced the latter variables via psychological climate per-
ceptions. Hart (1999) reported a similar finding. Specifically, he found
that negative affectivity directly influenced perceptions of hassles, but
not job and nonwork satisfaction. A significant aspect of this study was
that I was able to show that the magnitude of the relationships between
psychological climate-empowerment-job satisfaction hardly changed with-
out negative affectivity in the tested model.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several important limitations of this study that need to be
acknowledged. First, the data was entirely self-report data. This creates
the potential problem of common method variance in the variables exam-
ined. On the other hand, I was able to show that the constructs examined
were separate constructs. The second issue is that the design was cross-
sectional. Thus although the hypothesised model was consistent with ex-
420 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

isting theoretical models, the causal direction cannot be determined. It

is also possible that alternate models may explain the data. For example,
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) propose a cyclical model in which over
time empowered individuals affect their environment. Models incorport-
ing the possibility of reciprocal relationships over time are best answered
by a longitudinal research design. Most of the research on empowerment
has been with private sector organisations and with a limited range of
organisational settings. There is a need for research on empowerment in
public sector organisations, as well as, a broader range of industries.
The findings of this study suggest that having a sense of responsibil-
ity or autonomy (i.e., self-determination) did not mediate the relation-
ship between psychological climate and job satisfaction. Ambiguous find-
ings have been reported about self-determination. Some have found it
influences job satisfaction (e.g., Spreitzer, et al., 1997, Sample 1; Thomas
& Tymon, 1994), while others have found it unrelated (Liden et al., 2000;
Spreitzer, et al., 1997, Sample 2). It is possible that self-determination
may be an important antecedent of outcomes other than job satisfaction,
for example, creativity, (Deci & Ryan, 1985), growth satisfaction (Fried
& Ferris, 1987) or organisational citizenship behaviour (Menon, 2001).
This line of reasoning follows from research on the job characteristics
model by Johns, Xie, and Fang (1992). Based on their research findings,
Johns and his colleagues conclude that each of the psychological states
of the job characteristics model has a significant role as a predictor of
specific outcomes. It would be interesting to explore alternate outcomes
associated with self-determination.

Practical Implications
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) postulate that there are two ways of
increasing psychological empowerment. One is to change the employees’
thinking processes, in other words, the way they interpret the environ-
ment, the other is change the environment or psychological climate.
These findings provide a number of “levers of change” that organisations
can undertake to enhance job motivation and job satisfaction. First, at
the individual level, managers can ensure that employees have a clear
understanding of the scope of their job and responsibilities, articulate
the overlap between organisational goals and individual goals, demon-
strate support for employees and encourage participative decision mak-
ing. At the organisational level, human resource departments can also
ensure that employees have access to suitable professional development
programs. In addition, managers should have access to training in appro-
priate behaviours, such as participative decision making and supportive
leader behaviour.
In conclusion, this study has shown that that empowerment medi-
 SALLY A. CARLESS 421

ates the relationship between psychological climate and job satisfaction

and that meaning and competence were the dominant facets of empower-
ment that were important. Ambiguous findings were reported on the rel-
ative importance of impact as a mediator of the psychological climate-
satisfaction relationship, on the other hand, self-determination was not
important. Further research is called for on the specific outcomes associ-
ated with facets of empowerment.

APPENDIX: SAMPLE ITEMS OF ORGANISATIONAL CLIMATE

(See Hart et al., 2000, for the full scale.)

Role clarity I am always clear about what others expect of me

Supportive There is support from the supervisors in this work
leadership place
Participative There are forums in this workplace where I can
decision- express my views and opinions
making
Professional There is good communication between groups in
interaction this workplace
Appraisal and I am encouraged in my work by praise, thanks or
recognition other recognition
Professional Others in this workplace take an active interest in
growth my career development and professional growth
Goal congru- The staff are committed to the work place’s goals
ence and values

REFERENCES

Arbuckel, J. L. & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C., Sinar,
E. F. & Parra, L. F. (1997). Users’ manual for the job descriptive index (JDI; 1997
Revision) and the job in general (JIG) scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State
University.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44,
1175–1184.
Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should
negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal
of Applied Psychology, 73, 193–198.
Brown, S. P. & Leigh, T. W. (1996) A new look at psychological climate and its relationship
to job involement, effort and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368.
Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Hurley, A. E. (1992). Reconceptualizing psychological cli-
422 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

mate in a retail service environment: A multiple-stakeholder perspective. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 77, 717–729.
Burke, M. J., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (1993). The role of negative affectivity in under-
standing relations between self-reports of stressors and strains: A comment on the
applied psychology literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 402–412.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modelling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applica-
tions, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chan, D. (2000, April). Method effects of positive affectivity, negative affectivity, and impres-
sion management. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the SIOP, New
Orleans, Orlando.
Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression;correlation analysis for the be-
havioural sciences (2nd ed). New York: Erlbaum.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and prac-
tice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.
Corsun, D. L. & Enz, C. A. (1999). Predicting psychological empowerment among service
workers: The effect of support-based relationships. Human Relations, 53, 205–224.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality: Another “hidden factor” in stress
research. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 22–24.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-
logical Assessment Resources, Inc.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneap-
olis: University of Minnesota Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Field, R. H. G., & Abelson, M. A. (1982). Climate: A reconceptualization and proposed
model. Human Relations, 35, 181–201.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review
and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.
Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of Man-
agement Executive, 9(3), 21–29.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological cli-
mate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–616.
Hackman, J. R. & Lawler, E. E. III (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology (Monograph), 55, 259–286.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hardy, C., & Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment: Implications
for research and practice. Human Relations, 51, 451–483.
Hart, P. M. (1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: A coherent model of personality,
work and nonwork experiences, and domain satisfactions. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 84, 564–584.
Hart, P. M., Wearing, A. J., Conn, M., Carter, N. L., & Dingle, R. K. (2000). Development
of the school organisational health questionnaire: A measure of assessing teacher mo-
rale and school organisational climate. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,
211–228.
Hart, P. M., Wearing, A. J., Griffin, M. A., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). An employee opinion
survey to help improve quality of work life in the Queensland public service. Manual.
Unpublished.
Hesketh, B. (1993). Measurement issues in industrial and organisational psychology. In
C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson, (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organi-
sational Psychology, Volume 8 (pp. 133–172). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.
Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and
work environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and
work environments (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
 SALLY A. CARLESS 423

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and

work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological conceptual, and statistical clarity in the
study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric
psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Constitu-
tion of a Job in General Scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific mea-
sures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193–200.
James, L. R., Hater, J. J., Gent, M. J., & Bruni, J. R. (1978). Psychological climate: Implica-
tions from cognitive social learning theory and interactional psychology. Personnel Psy-
chology, 31, 783–813.
James, L. A. & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explora-
tions into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739–751.
James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. K. (1990). The meaning of organizations: The role
of cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp.
40–84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and re-
search. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096–1112.
James, L. R., & McIntyre, M. D. (1996). Perceptions of organizatinal climate. In K. R.
Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 416–450). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johns, G., Xie, J. L., & Fang, Y. (1992). Mediating and moderating effects in job design.
Journal of Management, 18, 657–676.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. Research in
Organizational Change and Development, 10, 131–167.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and conse-
quences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74.
Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E. & Cordery, J. L. (1997, June). Toward a model of team
performance for the 21st century: How the interaction of skill development, team em-
powerment, and self management creates high performance work teams. Paper pre-
sented at the 2nd Australian Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference,
Melbourne, Australia, 27–29 June.
Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in
productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 282–318).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Doherty, M. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examina-
tion of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 546–553.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E. & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a
multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and Psychologi-
cal Measurement, 59, 127–142.
Lawler, E. E. (1992). The ultimate advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leigh, J. H., Lucas, G. H., Jr., & Woodman, R. W. (1988). Effects of perceived organiza-
tional factors on role stress—job attitude relationships. Journal of Management, 14,
41–58.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role
of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relation-
ships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–416.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1347). Chicago: Rand
McNally College Publishing Company.
Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Ap-
plied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 153–180.
Munz, D. C., Huelsman, T. J., Jonald, T. R. & McKinney, J. J. (1996). Are there method-
ological and substantive roles of affectivity in job diagnostic survey relationships?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 795–805.
Ostroff, C. Kinicki, A. J. & Tamkins, M. M. Organizational culture and climate (2003). In
W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psy-
chology, volume 12: I/O psychology, (pp. 565–594). Wiley & Sons.
Parker, C. P. (1999). A test of alternative hierarchical models of psychological climate:
424 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

PCg, satisfaction, or common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 2,

257–274.
Parker, L. E., & Price, R. H. (1994). Empowered managers and empowered workers: The
effects of managerial support and managerial perceived control on workers’ sense of
control over decision making. Human Relations, 47, 911–922.
Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on manage-
rial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 9, 126–146.
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). The road to empowerment: Seven questions every
leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, 37–49.
Randolph, W. A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organisational Dynam-
ics, Spring, 19–32.
Rousseau, D. M. (1988). The construction of climate in organizational research. In C.
Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organisational
Psychology, Volume 3 (pp. 139–158). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Schneider, B. & Reichers, A. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36,
19–40.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S., & Sashkin, M. (2001, April). Empowerment climate: A multiple-
level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Paper presented at the
16th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology, San
Diego, CA.
Shadur, M. A., Kienzle, R., & Rodwell, J. J. (1999). The relationship between organiza-
tional climate and employee perceptions of involvement. Group and Organization
Management, 24, 479–503.
Smith, P. C. (1976). Behaviours, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of
criteria. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol-
ogy (pp. 745–776). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sparrowe, R. T. (1994). Empowerment in the hospitality industry: An exploration of ante-
cedents and outcomes. Hospitality Research Journal, 17, 51–73.
Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Spector, P. E., Chen, P. Y., & O’Connell, B. J. (2000). A longitudinal stud of relations
between job stressors and job strains while controlling for prior negative affectivity
and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 211–218.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & van Katwyk, P. T. (1999). The role of negative affectivity in
employee reactions to job characteristics: Bias effect or substantive effect? Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 205–218.
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should
not be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79–95.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995a). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, mea-
surement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995b). An emprical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal em-
powerment in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 601–
629.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a common ground in defining empowerment. Research in
Organizational Change and Development, 10, 31–62.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the
relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and
strain. Journal of Management, 23, 679–704.
Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1997). Understanding and overcoming supervisor resistance
during the transition to employee empowerment. Research in Organizational Change
and Development, 10, 169–196.
Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G., Jr. (1994). Does empowerment always work: Understand-
ing the role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation. Journal of Manage-
ment Systems, 6(2), 1–13.
 SALLY A. CARLESS 425

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

pretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–
681.
Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aver-
sive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.
Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Folger, R. (1986). Beyond negative affectivity: Measuring
stress and satisfaction in the work place. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-
ment, 8, 141–157.
Williams, L. J. Gavin, M. B. & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and nonmeasurement
processes with negative affectivity and employee attitude. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 81, 88–101.