










































EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 


  

EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT AND EMPLOYEE 
SATISFACTION IN THE WORKPLACE 

 
 

Victor Voisard 
Department of Sociology 

California State University, Los Angeles 
 

 
Organizations adapt different strategies or methods for managing 
their labor forces.  Every discussion of management of labor 
compels analysis within the framework of schools of thought in the 
field of Organizational Sociology, Industrial Organizational 
Psychology, and Organizational Management.  This study evaluates 
a healthcare organization’s efforts derived from Humanistic 
Management and coordinated through its Human Resources 
department to improve workforce morale.  The study’s hypothesis 
contends that employee empowerment positively affects employee 
satisfaction levels.  The empirical findings support this hypothesis.  
In addition, the findings reflect that employee empowerment has a 
stronger effect over employee satisfaction than other variables 
including employees’ salaries. This study’s findings have major 
significance for corporations given the steadfast globalization of 
the economy.  Employee empowerment may offer organizations an 
invaluable tool in their quest for organizational competitiveness.   

 
 
INTRODUCTION1 
 
Effective management is the foundation for 
creating high morale, high productivity, and a 
sense of meaning for the organization and its 
employees.  An organization’s success 
depends on its ability to con-tinuously 
                                                           
1. Victor Voisard is a graduate student at the 
Department of Sociology. He is currently 
working on his Master’s Thesis under the 
supervision of Professors Elaine Draper 
(Chair), Gretchen Peterson, and Hyojoung 
Kim. The paper was originally submitted to 
SOC410 (Advanced Statistics) taught by 
Professor Hyojoung Kim.  
 

nourish the satisfaction of its employees.  
There are job characteristics considered 
crucial to employee satisfaction and all these 
variables are relevant since they all influence 
the way employees’ feel about their jobs. 
 A workplace phenomenon, employee 
empowerment, that is employees’ actual 
involvement and influence over orga-
nizational processes and decision-making, 
continues to cultivate the attention of orga-
nizational sociologists, industrial psy-
chologists, and business administrators 
particularly human resources professionals.  
Since the early 1990s, the concept of 
employee empowerment gained notoriety in 
both academic and management groups.  At 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 2

that time, business leaders such as General 
Electric’s CEO, Jack Welch, laid out GE’s 
Workout program to empower employees to 
identify and solve problems as they 
encounter them rather than shifting 
responsibility to others or management 
(Ulrich, 1998). 
 The workplace literature mainly 
includes studies on the effects of employee 
satisfaction, and its effects on labor force 
efficiency and overall productivity.  Many 
studies focus on the particular effects of 
salaries and indirect forms of compensation, 
such as employer sponsored benefits, on 
employee satisfaction.  However, literature 
focusing on the relationship or effects of 
employee empowerment on employee sat-
isfaction primarily involves a limited number 
of qualitative studies.  The goal of this study 
is to remedy the literature’s shortcomings by 
systematically analyzing the relationship, if 
any, between employee empowerment and 
employee satisfaction in the workplace.  Spe-
cifically, this study evaluates a Southern 
California healthcare organization’s ef-forts 
derived from Humanistic Management and 
coordinated through its Human Resources 
department to improve workforce morale and 
overall employee satisfaction. Before dis-
cussing such evaluation, I offer a brief 
literature review on employee empowerment 
to lay the foundation for this empirical study. 
 
LITERATURE REVIEW 
 
From the late 1800s until World War II, 
Frederick Taylor’s scientific management 
greatly influenced entrepreneurs’ and man-
agers’ strategies for managing workers.  
Managers believed that workers possessed a 
natural tendency to perform the minimum 
labor to remain employed.    
 Harry Braverman’s (1974) Labor and 
Monopoly Capital comprehensively ex-

amined scientific management.  He argued 
that scientific management encouraged the 
fragmentation of work processes in repetitive 
and simple tasks, thus discouraging workers’ 
problem solving capabilities.  Scientific 
management fostered an authoritarian man-
agement style while annulling and dis-
appointing workers’ demands for self-esteem 
and self-actualizing in the workplace.  The 
effects of scientific management encouraged 
workers to unionize and to demand higher 
compensation, the main vehicles available to 
workers to express their frustration with 
workplace alienation.  This situation neg-
atively affected both organizations’ decision-
makers and workers. 
 After World War II, the United States 
economy became world dominant.  
American workers enjoyed relative high 
salaries and fringe benefits such as medical 
coverage vis-à-vis workers in the rest of the 
world.  Abraham Maslow’s (1943) “A 
Theory of Human Motivation” offered a 
different model from scientific management.  
Maslow contended that as humans meet 
“basic needs” they seek to satisfy 
successively “higher needs” on a set 
hierarchy.  Maslow's hierarchy of needs is 
frequently represented as a pyramid 
consisting of five levels: the four lower 
levels are grouped together as deficiency 
needs associated with phys-iological needs, 
while the top level is termed growth needs 
associated with psychological needs.  
According to Maslow, deficiency needs must 
be met before the growth needs can be met.  
The basic concept is that the higher needs in 
the hierarchy only come into focus once all 
the needs that are lower down in the pyramid 
are mainly or entirely satisfied.  
 Douglas McGregor’s (1957) The 
Human Side of Enterprise applied Maslow’s 
ideas to the workplace.  Michael Handel 
(2003: 81-82) articulated McGregor’s major 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 3

conceptualizations.  McGregor contended 
that organizations could tap into invaluable 
workers’ resources through the application of 
Maslow’s theory of motivation.  McGregor 
argued that the scientific management 
system of labor control needed to be replaced 
by a philosophy recognizing that workers 
seek stimulating work.  Similarly, the new 
phi-losophy would need to encourage 
workers’ inventiveness, enhance work-ers’ 
self-esteem, and ultimately make them share 
responsibility for organizational success or 
failure.  Employee’s self-actualization de-
mands entail that individuals seek a job 
inherently worthwhile in addition to workers 
simply seeking extrinsic rewards such as 
compensation.  In contrast to scientific 
management, McGregor stated that all jobs, 
especially those at the bottom of the 
organizational hierarchy, need to be 
composed of diverse, meaningful tasks and 
entrusted with greater responsibility.  In 
addition, decentralization of decision- 
making needs to take place through 
considerable and material delegation of tasks 
and re-sponsibilities from management to 
workers.  Workers’ participation in decision-
making must be real; McGregor warned 
management that problems would arise when 
worker participation in decision-making was 
not authentic.  The actual shift of decision-
making power from management to 
employees entails less reliance on external 
control of workers but more on worker’s 
internal motivation (Handel 2003: 108-113). 
 Sherman, Bohlander, and Snell 
(1998) in Managing Human Resources 
articulated the case for implementing 
McGregor’s earlier contributions (pp. 107-
111). They argued that organizational leaders 
could increase employee contributions 
through employee empowerment.  They 
defined employee empowerment as a 
“method of involving employees in their 

work through a process of inclusion” (p. 
107).  In addition, Sherman, Bohlander, and 
Snell operationalized what employee 
empowerment entails for it to succeed.   
 Also in 1998, David Ulrich in 
Delivering Results articulated the need for 
employee empowerment in today’s 
American organizations (p. 223).  Ulrich 
highlighted Acme Corporation’s failure at 
successfully implementing an employee 
empowerment program.  Ulrich points out 
that some organizations struggled with and 
failed to change from a “command-and-
control hierarchy to employee 
empowerment” because they failed to change 
their organizational culture.  Ulrich’s 
analysis exemplifies what McGregor argued 
fifty years earlier as crucial aspects required 
for employee empowerment initiatives to 
suc-ceed. 
 In October 1999, Goldfarb, a 
Canadian consulting group, sponsored by the 
Canadian Federation of Independent Busi-
ness, conducted a systemic Study on 
Workplace Satisfaction in Private and Public 
Sectors.  The study correlated many work 
aspects to overall workplace satisfaction, 
including quality of decision-makers, work 
ethic, communication between manager and 
employees, flexibility for personal needs, 
training opportunities, salary, job security, 
work hours, and benefits.  Goldfarb used 
Spearman's correlation coefficient for the 
included independent variables and 
employee satisfaction.  However, the 
Goldfarb study omitted employee 
empowerment or similar variables from the 
analysis.  Consequently, this research 
proposal’s main goal is to address such 
omissions. 
 Other quantitative studies have 
examined the effects of different inde-
pendent variables, particularly salary, on 
employee satisfaction but none to date have 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 4

examined the effects of employee em-
powerment on employee satisfaction.  Even 
though no quantitative research on the 
effects of employee empowerment on 
employee satisfaction has been identified in 
the literature, Matt Vidal from the 
Department of Sociology, University of 
Wisconsin at Madison, published a valuable 
qualitative article on employee 
empowerment (Vidal 2007: 247–278).  
Vidal’s article “Lean Production, Worker 
Empowerment, and Job Satisfaction: A 
Qualitative Analysis and Critique” states that 
even though many studies have analyzed 
employee em-powerment since the 1980s, 
“little qualitative research directly addressing 
the relationship between participatory work 
arrangements and job satisfaction [exists], 
and the quantitative evidence is much less 
clear than often presented.”  Vidal 
qualitatively researches the effects of 
participatory work arrangements on job 
satisfaction. 
 In summary, the literature reviewed 
to date reflects no systemic quantitative 
research on employee empowerment’s 
effects on employee satisfaction.  The goal 
of this thesis will be to remedy the 
literature’s short-comings. 
 
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 
 
In line with McGregor’s notions on worker 
motivation, our organization introduced a 
series of employee empowerment initiatives.  
This survey research will focus on a specific 
aspect of employee satisfaction.  It will 
examine the effect of employee em-
powerment on employee satisfaction.  I 
hypothesize that employee empowerment has 
a positive effect/relationship with the degree 
of employee satisfaction.  
 How – As the degree of an 
employee’s sense of empowerment 

increases, his/her level of satisfaction 
increases. 
 Why - Employees given additional 
responsibility for the execution and 
management of their job duties and given 
participation in decision making are more 
“emotionally” invested than those with 
simple/repetitive jobs and not given par-
ticipation in the decision making process. 
 
Other Research Hypotheses: 
 
“Age” would have a positive effect on 
employee satisfaction (i.e. older employees 
would display higher employee satisfaction).  
Employees of older generations tend to be 
more loyal and committed to the 
organization one belongs to.  For instance, 
baby boomers (i.e. those born form 1946 to 
1965) would be expected to be more loyal to 
the employer than generation Ys (i.e. those 
born after 1981). 
 “Tenure” would have a positive 
effect on employee satisfaction (i.e. higher 
tenure would lead to higher employee 
satisfaction).  Employees that have invested 
significant time with an employer and had 
remained with such over time would be 
expected to display higher degree of 
employment satisfaction. 
 “Commuting Time” to the workplace 
would have a negative effect on employee 
satisfaction (i.e. shorter commutes would 
lead to higher employee satisfaction).  Em-
ployees with shorter commutes resulting in 
lower “unproductive time” and lower com-
muting costs would be expected to display 
higher degree of employee satisfaction than 
those with longer commutes. 
 “Flexible Schedule” would have a 
positive effect on employee satisfaction (i.e. 
flexibility would lead to higher employee 
satisfaction).  Employees with flexible 
schedules are in a better position to find an 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 5

optimum balance between work and their 
non-work life. 
 “Job Rank” would have a positive 
effect on employee job satisfaction (i.e. the 
higher an employee’s rank in the 
organizational hierarchy would lead to 
higher employee satisfaction).  Employees 
higher in the organizational hierarchy such 
as super-visors, managers and directors, 
would be expected to be more committed 
and invested in the organization than rank-
and-file employees. 
 “Salary” would have a positive 
effect on employee satisfaction (i.e. higher 
salaries would lead to higher employee 
satisfaction).  Employees earning higher 
salaries would be expected to feel more 
appreciated and recognized for their work. 
 
SURVEY PROCEDURES AND 
SAMPLING 
  
The subjects selected for study were 
employees of a medical management service 
corporation located in Southern California.  
The workforce selected was an appropriate 
population for study because the 
organization had introduced employee 
empowerment initiatives and its management 
supported the study.  Physician groups and 
administrators created the healthcare 
organization selected for study in their 
attempt to cope with various types of 
healthcare plans.  This corporation is typical 
of California healthcare organizations that 
employ many primary-care physicians 
servicing diverse patient populations.  The 
development of Health Maintenance Or-
ganizations (HMO), Preferred Provider 
Organizations (PPO), and other “managed 
care” plans resulted in the need for 
management healthcare organizations to 
offer their services to physician groups.  This 
type of health-care management organization 

evolved into a full-service Management 
Services Organization (MSO) in affiliation 
with medical physician groups to provide 
high quality patient care to the community.  
 The selected organization’s 
workforce entailed 330 employees, of whom 
roughly 65% are clinical employees, 
including Medical Assistants, Licensed 
Vocational Nurses, and Registered Nurses.  
The other 35% of the workforce are 
administrative per-sonnel, including Claims 
Examiners, Medical Records Clerks, 
Customer Services Rep-resentatives, 
Accountants, and Admin-istrative Assistants.  
Since physicians were not employees of the 
MSO organization, they were excluded from 
the study. 
 The Simple Random Sampling 
Method was used.  A table of random 
numbers and employees’ four-digit payroll 
identification numbers was used for selecting 
the population sample. The selection 
probability of a case was equal to 110 
employees (target sample) divided by 330 
employees (sampling frame). The population 
equals 330 employees.  Consequently, every 
element in the sampling frame had a 33.3% 
selection probability.  Every employee in the 
organization had an equal chance of being 
selected to avoid any bias.  This 
characteristic of probability sampling makes 
it much more desirable given our goal of 
generalizing to the larger workforce pop-
ulation. 
 The survey was administered via 
interoffice mail.  Due to our organizations’ 
widely scattered geo-graphical locations and 
because of the high costs of sending 
someone from Human Resources to 
administer the survey in person to 
employees, the mail survey was the only 
current feasible option.  The surveys were 
interoffice mailed to employees’ to their 
physical work locations on Monday, October 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 6

29, 2007, with a return date of Thursday, 
November 1, 2007.  Thus, the ad-vantages of 
mailing the survey was lower costs including 
but not limited to, wage saving and avoided 
travel expenses.  How-ever, there were 
potential trade-offs for these cost savings 
such as possible lower response rates and 
lack of immediate availability to answer any 
questions that may come up.  The decision to 
conduct a mail-out survey should not be 
constructed as an implicit settlement for a 
lower response rate.  Attention to specific 
efforts had been taken to ensure the success 
of this research.  
 A total of 110 surveys were mailed-
out of which 104 were completed and 
returned by the due date for a response rate 
of 94.6%.  The resulting sample is 31.6% of 
the workforce.  Due to the confidentiality 
nature of the survey and the mail-out survey 
design utilized, no comment can be made on 
the 6-six employees not responding. 
 The final sample is representative of 
our workforce population since the 
probability sampling method was utilized, 
the sampling frame used is an unbiased list 
of the population. 
 Given the mailed survey design used 
for disseminating the survey questionnaires, 
it seems that the survey is least vulnerable to 
social desirability effect. 
 A focus group totaling 5-five 
employees was utilized to pre-test and 
improve the survey.  The employees chosen 
were from the following departments: 
Human Resources, Ac-counting, Finance and 
Payroll.  These respondents were chosen 
because of their availability.  It took them an 
average of 15-20 minutes to complete the 
survey.  I briefly interviewed all five 
respondents to get meaningful feedback to 
revise and improve the survey.  Overall they 
felt comfortable with the survey.  They 
communicated under-standing of the survey 

instructions, ques-tions’ wording and 
response categories.  They helped me by 
pointing out that a few questions were 
redundant, asking basically the same thing.  
Their feedback helped me to eliminate un-
necessary questions and fine tune the 
wording on a few others. 

 
MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES 
 
“Employee Satisfaction” (dependent var-
iable) is here defined as the employee’s 
feelings or state-of-mind regarding the 
nature of their work and conditions of 
employment with a particular employer.  
Specifically I focus on the following three 
dimensions: sense of perceived job worth, 
sense of perceived growth opportunities, and 
sense of perceived fairness in the workplace.  
Job Worth is further defined as the 
employee’s state of mind of steady 
employment and perceived balance between 
job and their non-work life. Growth 
Opportunities is the employee’s state of 
mind of present and future “growth” 
opportunities with the employer including 
promotions/ ad-vancement and training 
and/or job ex-perience.  Fairness in the 
Workplace includes a set of separate 
dimensions including fairness of pay and 
benefits, fairness of recognition, and fairness 
of management. 
 To measure this variable, respondents 
are asked to indicate their level of 
satisfaction using a 6-point Lickert scale of 
“very satisfied,” “satisfied,” “somewhat 
satisfied,” “somewhat dissatisfied,” 
“dissatisfied,” and “very dissatisfied,” for 
each of the following eight statements: 

1 I feel my job provides steady 
employment. 

2. I feel my job and the other parts of 
my life are balanced. 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 7

3. I am satisfied with the promotional 
growth opportunities within the 
company. 

4. I am satisfied with the frequency and 
quality of training I received. 

5. I am satisfied with the compensation 
I receive for my work. 

6. I am satisfied with the current 
benefits package offered to me. 

7. I am satisfied with the amount of 
recognition I receive for my job 
performance. 

8. I am satisfied with the management 
style of my supervisor. 

 
 An employee satisfaction index was 
created by computing the responses’ scores 
to the eight statements.  This index was 
utilized for data analysis. 
 “Employee Empowerment” (key 
independent variable) is here defined in 
terms of the employee’s perception or 
believes of enhanced involvement in 
organizational processes and decision 
making.  Specifically I focus on the 
following sub-dimensions: allowance to 
make decisions on assigned routine work 
duties, allowance to make decisions to 
resolve non-routine issues, level of 
encouragement given for creativity and 
implementation of work improvement ideas, 
opportunity to influence depart-mental goals 
setting, and invitation to participate in 
process improvement teams. 
 To measure this variable, respondents 
are asked to indicate their level of agreement 
using a 6-point Lickert scale of “strongly 
agree,” “agree,” “somewhat agree,” “some-
what disagree,” “disagree,” and “strongly 
disagree,” for each of the following five 
statements: 
 

1. I am allowed to make decisions 
necessary for effectively accom-

plishing my routine day-to-day duties 
and responsibilities. 

2. I am allowed to make decisions when 
resolving non-routine situations or 
issues. 

3. I receive encouragement to come up 
with and implement new and better 
ways for improving the organization. 

4. I have the opportunity to influence 
the way my department’s goals are 
estab-lished. 

5. I have been invited to participate in 
teams/committees that influence de-
cisions for my department or the 
company as a whole. 

 
 An employee empowerment index 
was created by computing the responses’ 
scores to the five statements.  This index was 
utilized for data analysis. 
 
Other Control Variables 
 
The Age variable is defined as the 
chronological age of the employee.  Due to 
confidentiality concerns, respondents will 
not asked for their precise age.  Respondents 
are asked the following question: Which of 
the following describes your age group?  
Respondent responses are classified in an 
ascending order, with category A indicating 
18 - 26 years of age, category B indicating 
27- 42 years of age, category C indicating 43 
- 62 years of age, and category D indicating 
63+ years of age.  The four age-group 
categories above identified approximate four 
different and distinct generations of workers: 
Silent Generation (those born from 1925 and 
1945), Baby Boomers (those born from 1946 
and 1964), Generation X (those born from 
1965 and 1980), and Generation Y (those 
born on after 1981).  
 The Tenure variable is defined as the 
length of employment (time measurement). 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 

8

Respondents are asked the following 
question: How long have you worked for the 
company?  Respondent responses are 
classified in an ascending order, with 
category A indicating less than 1-one year of 
employment, category B indicating at least 
1-one but less but less than 5-five years of 
employment, and category C indicating at 
least 5-five or more years of employment.  
 The Commuting Time variable is 
defined as the actual time it takes the em-
ployee to get to the workplace.  Respondents 
are asked the following question: Which of 
the following de-scribes your commuting 
time to work? Respondent responses are 
classified in an ascending order, with 
category A indicating less than 15 minutes, 
category B indicating at least 15 but less than 
45 minutes, and category C indicating more 
than 45 minutes. 
 The Flexible Schedule variable is 
defined as the employee having or not 
having flexible work hours. Respondents are 
asked the following question: Which of the 
following best describes your scheduled 
work hours?  Respondent responses are 
classified into two groups, with category A 
indicating the employee has fixed work-
hours (for example 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM), 
and category B indicating the employee does 
not have flexible work-hours. 
 The Job Rank variable is defined as 
the employee’s position within the 
organizational hierarchy. Respondents are 
asked the following question: Which 
category best describes your job?  Re-
spondent responses are classified in an 
ascending order, with category A indicating 
Rank-and-file employee, category indicating 
B Lead/Supervisor, and category indicating 
C Manager/Director. 
 The Salary variable is defined as the 
employee’s direct compensation for their 
work.  Respondents are asked the following 

question: Which of the following describes 
your salary/wages? Respondent responses 
are classified in an ascending order, with 
category A indicating less than $15.00 hour, 
category B indicating more than $15.00 hour 
but less than $25.00 hour, and category C 
indicating more than $25.00 hour. 
 
FINDINGS 
 
Univariate Summary Statistics 
 
An index was created from respondents’ 
answers to the 5-statements measuring 
employee empowerment.  Table 1 shows a 
mean of 4.92 and a standard deviation of .76 
for this variable.  As Figure 1 illustrates, the 
majority of respondents (45) expressed 
“agreement” and 38 respondents expressed 
“somewhat agreement”.  These two groups 
represent 79.9% of all respondents.  Only 9 
respondents expressed any type of 
disagreement (8.7%).  These findings reflect 
a relatively overall high degree of employee 
empowerment in the workplace. 
 An index was created from 
respondents’ answers to the 8-statements 
measuring employee satisfaction.  Table 1 
shows a mean of 4.86 and a standard 
deviation of .68 for this variable.  As Figure 
1 illustrates, the majority of respondents 
(47) expressed to be “satisfied” and 42 
respondents expressed to be “somewhat 
satisfied”.  These two groups represent 
85.6% of all respondents.  Only 11 re-
spondents expressed any type of dis-
satisfaction (10.6%).  These findings reflect 
a relatively overall high degree of employee 
satisfaction in the workplace. 
  
Bivariate Pearson’s Correlation Analysis 
 
Table 1 reports Pearson’s correlation 
coefficients among the variables.  As 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 

Figure 1.-Frequencey distribution of 
Employee Satisfaction

0 0

11

42
47

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

Very
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied

Somewhat
Satisfied

Satisfied Very
Satisfied

Degree of Satisfaction

Figure 2.-Frequency distribution of
Employee Empowerment

0
2

7

38

45

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Somewhat
Disagree

Somewhat
Agree

Agree Strongly
Agree

Degree of Agreement

N
um

be
r o

f R
es

po
nd

en
ts

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. Univariate Statistics and Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients of the Variables in the Analysis  

 

 

correlation coefficients with variable Variables Mean 
Standard 
Devia-

tion (8) (7) (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) 

(1) Age 2.12 .75 .12 .12 .25* .29** .18 .15 .30** 

(2) Tenure 2.31 .70 .12 .11 .37** .28** .24* .03  

(3) Commuting Time 1.83 .67 .03 .010 .20* .12 .17*   

(4) Flexible Schedule .37 .48 .27** .37** .31** .31**    

(5) Job Rank 1.15 .46 .24* .44** .56**     

(6) Salary 1.75 .68 .01 .20*      

(7) Employee Empowerment 4.92 .76 .71**       

(8) Employee Satisfaction 4.86 .68        

**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 
*  Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).  

 
 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 

predicted, significant positive correlations 
were found between flexible schedule and 
employee satisfaction (r = .27 at the 0.01 
level, 2-tailed), and job rank and employee 
satisfaction (r = .24 at the 0.05 level, 2-
tailed).  Similarly expected, positive 
correlations, even though not significant at 
the 0.01 or 0.05 level (2-tailed), were found 
between age and employee satisfaction (r = 
.12), and tenure and employee satisfaction (r 
= .12).  Contrary to predictions, com-muting 
time and salary were found not to show 
association with employee satisfaction (r = 
.01). 
 The most relevant finding and as 
predicted was the significant positive 
correlation found between employee 
empowerment and employee satisfaction (r = 
.71 at the 0.01 level, 2-tailed).  The analyzed 
coefficients support the hypothesis that 
employee empowerment has a positive 
relationship with the degree of employee 
satisfaction.  This bivariate finding is a very 
encouraging first step in the analysis. 
 
Multivariate Regression Analysis 

 
The outcomes of bivariate associations may 
be spurious due to the effects of other 
variables that may affect both the dependent 
variable and the key independent variable 
simultaneously.  Better evidence can be 
found if the effects of these other variables 
are controlled for.  In order to control the 
effects of other variables on employee 
satisfaction, the data is analyzed using 
multivariate regression techniques.  The 
normality assumption was checked by 
examining the distribution of residuals.  The 
resulting probability plot showed a rea-
sonably good fit to the normal distribution. 
 Since employee satisfaction is a 
continuous dependent variable, the OLS 
regression analysis estimates the effect of 

independent variables on the dependent 
variable.  As shown in Table 2, the Adjusted 
R Square shows that the model fits the data 
well, providing empirical support that the 
model successfully explains 50 % of the 
variance present in the dependent variable.  
In addition, the resulting F test is statistically 
significant at .05 level.  These results indicate 
the explanatory power of the model in 
explaining employee satisfaction levels. 
 Table 2 also shows the relationship of 
independent variables and dependent 
variable.  The regression coefficients of age, 
tenure, commuting time, flexible schedule, 
and job rank are all statistically insignificant 
at 0.05 net of other variables in the model.  
These findings show that the employees’ age, 
length of employment, travel time to work, 
having or not a flexible schedule, and their 
job rank have no significant effects on 
employee satisfaction. 
 Salary’s regression coefficient is 
negative and statistically significant at 0.05 
level net of other variables in the model, such 
counterintuitive finding compels a deeper 
analysis.  A Partial Regression Plot for salary 
was examined to identify any outliers (Figure 
3).  The most obvious outlier (identified as 
ID=24 located in the lower right part of 
Figure 3), exhibits a pattern different from 
the rest of the sample.  When this outlier case 
is removed, the new regression outcome 
reflects that the coefficient for salary 
becomes in-significant at the 0.05 level net of 
other variables in the model.  The 
coefficients for all other variables remain in-
significant except employee empowerment, 
which con-tinues to be significant.  Outlier 
case ID=24 is a lead/supervisor dissatisfied 
with his/her supervisor and level of 
recognition.  This lead/supervisor belongs to 
the group of employees describing their 
salary to be $25 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Regression Coefficients of Employee Satisfaction on Selected Independent Variables 
 

Full Sample Without ID=24 Independent Variables 
Coef. (Std. Error) Coef. (Std. Error) 

(Constant) 1.62 (.39) 1.36 (.38) 
Employee Empowerment .65 (.07)** .68 (.07)** 
Age .04 (.07) .06 (07) 
Tenure .10 (.08) .06 (.07) 
Commuting Time .05 (.07) .09 (.07) 
Flexible Schedule .05 (.11) -.03 (.11) 
Job Rank -.04 (.14) 0.0 (.13) 
Salary -.19 (.09)* -.15 (.09) 
N 104 103 
Adjusted R Square 0.50 0.55 
 F Test 15.75** 18.81** 

 
**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 

13

1.501.000.500.00-0.50-1.00

Salary

1.00

0.50

0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

Em
pl

oy
ee

 S
at

is
fa

ct
io

n

24

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

9695

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85
84

83

82

81

8079

78
77

74

7372

71

70 69
68 67

66 65

64

63
62 61

60

59
58
57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47
46

45

44

43

4241

39
3837

36
35

3433

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

23

22
2120

19

18

17
16 15

14

13 12

11

10

9
8

7

6

54

3

2

1

Figure 3 - Partial Regression Plot

 
 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 

hour or higher, which is the highest category 
for this variable.  The uniqueness of this 
outlier as shown in Figure 3 makes a 
compelling case for removal from the 
analysis.  
 The most important finding is the 
regression coefficient of employee em-
powerment been positive and statistically 
significant at .01 net of other variables in the 
model.  I hypothesized that employee 
empowerment has a positive 
effect/relationship with the degree of 
employee satisfaction.  The findings support 
the notion that as the workforce’s degree of 
empowerment increases, its level of sat-
isfaction increases.  The findings validate Mc 
Gregor’s and Argyris’ notions on worker 
motivation.   
 In addition, the survey’s findings 
have multiple ramifications to Human 
Resources professionals and operational 
executives and managers.  The incorporation 
of employee empowerment concepts 
including but not limited to, job-design, 
employee reward systems, and service 
delivery systems will be beneficial to 
employees and employer alike.  The survey 
findings may also indicate how or-
ganizations could increase their com-
petitiveness in today’s global and highly 
competitive economy.  Workers given 
increasing “powers” for the execution and 
management of their job duties combined 
with genuine participation in decision making 
are more satisfied. 

 
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION  
 
This study draws on survey data from a 
sample of 104 respondents employed at a 
Southern California healthcare organization 
to primarily investigate the impact of 
employee em-powerment on employee 
satisfaction.  Using a model that combines 

the employee’s age, tenure, community time 
to work, having or not a flexible work 
schedule, job-rank, and perceived degree of 
employee empowerment, the model 
successfully accounts for 50% of the variance 
in employee satisfaction.   
 The survey procedures, sampling, and 
data analysis support the paper’s key research 
hypothesis that employee empowerment has a 
positive effect on employee satisfaction.  It 
may also indicate that employee 
empowerment has a more relevant effect on 
employee satisfaction over other employment 
variables such as salary.  It is important to 
note that the studied orga-nization 
competitively compensates employees and 
offers comprehensive and very affordable 
benefits based on healthcare industry 
standards.  In addition, annual employee 
satisfaction surveys’ results conducted at the 
company for the last few years consistently 
show employees having high levels of 
satisfaction with their wages.  This 
organizational context may explain why 
salary was found to have a statistically 
insignificant effect on employee satisfaction. 
 The reported evidence may have two 
limitations.  First, the scope of this research 
was limited to the analyzed variables.  As a 
result, extraneous variables omitted from this 
analysis could have produced different 
outcomes.  For instance, the research omitted 
employees’ disciplinary records and 
performance reviews results.  These variables 
could have added additional insights 
including but not limited to, evaluating their 
statistical significance or insignificance with 
employee satisfaction, their effects on 
employee empowerment, and explaining 
outliers such as ID=24.  Second, the sample 
utilized on this project was representative of 
the employee population studied.  However, 
it cannot be said to be representative of other 
employers in healthcare or across industries.   

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 

15

 The first above-mentioned limitation 
could be breached by conducting a 
comprehensive review of the current 
literature on employee satisfaction and other 
employment variables including but not 
limited to employee empowerment.  The 
second above-mentioned limitation could be 
addressed by conducting similar research at 
other organizations in healthcare and other 
industries.  Such research will provide the 
needed depth of analysis for generalizing 
findings across employers in the United 
States.   
 Even though limited in its scope, this 
research project presented compelling and 
valuable insights on the positive and sta-
tistically significant effect of employee em-
powerment initiatives on employee 
satisfaction.  Employee empowerment 
initiatives may include but not be limited to: 
(1) allowing staff to make decisions 
necessary for effectively ac-complishing 
routine and non-routine day-to-day duties and 
responsibilities, (2) encouraging staff to 
come up with and implement new and better 
ways for improving the organization, (3) 
providing staff the opportunity to influence 
the way department’s goals are established, 
(4) and inviting staff to participate in 
teams/committees that influence decisions.  
This study’s findings have significant value 
to employers when prioritizing strategies and 
allocating resources to their respective 
workforces.  They aid decision-makers when 
trying to promote the “workforce-will” to 
accomplish organizational goals and 
objectives such as increase profits and 
improve customer satisfaction.   
 
ENDNOTES 
 
1The terms “employee satisfaction” and “job 
satisfaction” denote the same concept 

according to the literature and may be used 
interchangeably.   
2 This is an introductory and brief definition 
of employee empowerment to provide the 
reader a general understanding on the 
concept.  A more comprehensive definition 
and analysis is forthcoming. 
3 “Personnel” was the term commonly used 
until the 1980s; “Human Resources” has 
been the term commonly used since the 
1990s. 
4 Literature Review: For the purpose of this 
report, the brief literature presented provides 
a basic background to the study. 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Braverman, Harry.  1998.  Labor and 

Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of 
Work in the Twentieth Century. New 
York: Monthly Review Press.   

Goldfarb Consultants. “Study on Workplace 
Satisfaction in Private, Public Sectors.” 
Canadian Federation of Independent 
Business.  Toronto, Canada: 1999. 

Handel, Michael. The Sociology of 
Organizations, Classic, Contemporary, 
and Critical Readings.  Thousand Oaks: 
Sage, 2003. 

Perrucci, Robert and Carolyn Perrucci. The 
Transformation of Work in the New 
Economy, Sociological Readings. Los 
Angeles: Roxbury, 2007. 

Maslow, Abraham.  “A Theory of Human 
Motivation.” Psychological Review 50 
(1943): 370-396. 

Sherman, Arthur, George Bohlander, and 
Scott Snell.  1998.  Managing Human 
Resources, 11th Edition.  Cincinnati, 
Ohio: South-Western College Publishing 

Ulrich, Dave.  1998.  Delivering Results. 
Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Busi-
ness School Publishing  

 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 

16
 
Appendix 1 - Complete Survey Questionnaire 
 
Dear employee,  
Human Resources is conducting this survey to give you an opportunity to express your views on the company’s latest employee empowerment 
initiatives.  The value of this survey depends on your being thoughtful and frank.  All of your responses are confidential.  Your identity will not be 
linked to your responses in any way.  This survey will only take about 20 minutes for you to complete.  If you have any questions about this 
survey or need assistance, please contact Human Resources at XXX-XXX-XXXX.  Thank you. 
 
 
1) Which of the following describes your age group? 

A) 18 - 26 years of age; 
B) 27- 42 years of age; 
C) 43- 62 years of age; 
D) 63+ years of age 

 
2) How long have you worked for the company? 

A) less than 1-one year of employment; 
B) at least 1-one but less but less than 5-five years of employment; 
C) at least 5-five or more years of employment 

 
3) Which of the following describes your commuting time to work? 

A) less than 15 minutes; 
B) at least 15 but less than 45 minutes; 
C) more than 45 minutes. 

 
4) Which of the following best describes your scheduled work hours?  

A) I have a fixed work-hours schedule (for example 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM) 
B) I have a flexible work-hours schedule that I have agreed upon with my supervisor 

 
5) What category best describes your job? 

A) Rank-and-file employee; 
B) Lead/Supervisor; 
C) Manager/Director 
 

6) Which of the following describes your salary/wages? 
A) less than $15.00 hour; 
B) more than $15.00 hour but less than $25.00 hour; 
C) more than $25.00 hour 



EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION by Victor Voisard 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2008, VOL. 1 (November: 1-17) 
 

17
  
Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements: 
 Strongly 

Agree Agree Somewha
t Agree 

Somewha
t Disagree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 
1. I am allowed to make decisions necessary for effectively 
accomplishing my routine day-to-day duties and 
responsibilities. 

      

2. I am allowed to make decisions when resolving non-routine 
situations or issues. 

      

3. I receive encouragement to come up with and implement 
new and better ways for improving the organization. 

      

4. I have the opportunity to influence the way my 
department’s goals are established. 

      

5. I have been invited to participate in teams/committees that 
influence decisions for my department or the company as a 
whole. 

      

 
Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following statements: 

 Very 
Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat 

Satisfied 
Somewhat 

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very 
Dissatisfied 

6. I feel my job provides steady employment.       
7. I feel my job and the other parts of my life are balanced.       
8. I am satisfied with the promotional growth opportunities 
within the company. 

      

9. I am satisfied with the frequency and quality of training I 
received. 

      

10. I am satisfied with the compensation I receive for my 
work. 

      

11. I am satisfied with the current benefits package offered 
to me. 

      

12. I am satisfied with the amount of recognition I receive 
for my job performance. 

      

13. I am satisfied with the management style of my 
supervisor. 

      

 


	 Douglas McGregor’s (1957) The Human Side of Enterprise applied Maslow’s ideas to the workplace.  Michael Handel (2003: 81-82) articulated McGregor’s major conceptualizations.  McGregor contended that organizations could tap into invaluable workers’ resources through the application of Maslow’s theory of motivation.  McGregor argued that the scientific management system of labor control needed to be replaced by a philosophy recognizing that workers seek stimulating work.  Similarly, the new phi-losophy would need to encourage workers’ inventiveness, enhance work-ers’ self-esteem, and ultimately make them share responsibility for organizational success or failure.  Employee’s self-actualization de-mands entail that individuals seek a job inherently worthwhile in addition to workers simply seeking extrinsic rewards such as compensation.  In contrast to scientific management, McGregor stated that all jobs, especially those at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy, need to be composed of diverse, meaningful tasks and entrusted with greater responsibility.  In addition, decentralization of decision- making needs to take place through considerable and material delegation of tasks and re-sponsibilities from management to workers.  Workers’ participation in decision-making must be real; McGregor warned management that problems would arise when worker participation in decision-making was not authentic.  The actual shift of decision-making power from management to employees entails less reliance on external control of workers but more on worker’s internal motivation (Handel 2003: 108-113).
	 An employee empowerment index was created by computing the responses’ scores to the five statements.  This index was utilized for data analysis.
	Other Control Variables
	Univariate Summary Statistics
	Bivariate Pearson’s Correlation Analysis
	Table 1. Univariate Statistics and Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients of the Variables in the Analysis 
	Multivariate Regression Analysis
	REFERENCES





