Exploring the effects of service provider's organizational support and empowerment on employee engagement and well-being

Rahman, Arafat; Björk, Peter; Ravald, Annika Article Exploring the effects of service provider's organizational support and empowerment on employee engagement and well-being Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Rahman, Arafat; Björk, Peter; Ravald, Annika (2020) : Exploring the effects of service provider's organizational support and empowerment on employee engagement and wellbeing, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/244852 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oabm20 Exploring the effects of service provider’s organizational support and empowerment on employee engagement and well-being Arafat Rahman, Peter Björk & Annika Ravald | To cite this article: Arafat Rahman, Peter Björk & Annika Ravald | (2020) Exploring the effects of service provider’s organizational support and empowerment on employee engagement and wellbeing, Cogent Business & Management, 7:1, 1767329, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 © 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 28 May 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1147 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 4 View citing articles MARKETING | RESEARCH ARTICLE Exploring the effects of service provider’s organizational support and empowerment on employee engagement and well-being Arafat Rahman 1* , Peter Björk 1 and Annika Ravald 1 Abstract: This paper aims to explore the effects of a service provider’s organizational support and organizational empowerment on employee well-being in the healthcare service context. It also investigates if employee engagement has an effect on employee well-being. An empirical study among the employees (n= 153) of a therapeutic and rehabilitation service provider in Dhaka, Bangladesh reveals that both organizational support and organizational empowerment have positive influences on employee well-being. Although organizational support has the largest effect on employee engagement, the influence of organizational empowerment on employee engagement is not a significant factor. However, employee engagement influences their well-being. The study findings provide insights by explaining the roles that a service provider can play to enhance employee well-being and the strategies that managers can take to realize the positive effects of organizational support and empowerment on well-being. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Arafat Rahman is a doctoral student at the Department of Marketing, Hanken School of Economics, Finland. His primary research interest is to examine the role of service providers in facilitating individual and societal well-being. His research interests also include well-being of the Base of the Pyramid (BoP) customers, online social support and well-being, sustainable new service development, and customer experiences in service encounters. Dr. Peter Björk is a professor of marketing at Hanken School of Economics, Finland. His research focus is in the field of service and tourism marketing, consumer behaviour, and business development. He has a special interest in service innovation and design, digitalization, micro grids, destination branding and tourist experiences. Dr. Annika Ravald is an associate professor of marketing at Hanken School of Economics, Finland. Her research covers strategic marketing, business model innovation and transformation, digital transformation, network and relationship dynamics, management in emerging business landscapes and ecosystems. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Employees are the lifeblood for any service providing organization. They act as the predominant interface between a service provider and its customers, especially for those that are highly people-intensive such as healthcare providers. Thus, it is of great importance to know how a service provider can facilitate its employees’well-being by taking various efforts and initiatives. This study attempts to address this issue by exploring the direct and indirect influence of a healthcare service provider’s organizational support and empowerment efforts on its employees’wellbeing. The results suggest that both organizational support and empowerment of a healthcare provider positively influence work-related and liferelated well-being of its employees. Organizational support can also facilitate employee well-being through engagement to their job and organization. The managers and policymakers can adopt the insights of this study for designing respective organizations’employee support programmes and empowerment initiatives to bring positive outcomes for their employees. Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 © 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Received: 18 February 2020 Accepted: 05 May 2020 * Corresponding author: Arafat Rahman, Department of Marketing, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Len Tiu Wright, De Montfort University Faculty of Business and Law, UK Additional information is available at the end of the article Page 1 of 19 Subjects: Business, Management and Accounting; Services Marketing; Relationship Marketing Keywords: organizational support; organizational empowerment; employee engagement; employee well-being; transformative service research 1. Introduction Employees are one of the key resources for a service provider as they engage in value-cocreation interactions with customers (Grönroos, 2012). The outcomes of these interactions with employees are reflected through customers’experience of service consumption and other behavioural and cognitive dispositions (Bolton et al., 2014; Heskett et al., 1994; Lloyd & Luk, 2011). However, outcomes at the customers’end derive from a service provider’s efforts to positively influence its employees’satisfaction, loyalty, and performance (Elmadağet al., 2008; Goldstein, 2003; Yee et al., 2011). Similarly, by deploying various organizational resources, an organization can influence employees’well-being and engagement, which can then contribute to various customer-level outcomes (Albrecht, 2012; Salanova et al., 2005). Echoing this connection between service employees and customers, the emerging transformative service research (TSR) domain posits, on the one hand, that service providers have roles for enhancing individual-level well-being such as the wellbeing of employees (Ostrom et al., 2015). On the other hand, providers can generate greater employee engagement for improved service outcomes (Ostrom et al., 2015, p. 134). Thus, service provider’s organizational efforts and initiatives have emerged as critical considerations to improve employee well-being and engagement and subsequently the capacity of a provider to deliver transformative services for their customers (Bolton et al., 2014; Bowen, 2016; Ostrom et al., 2015). Employee well-being represents the overall quality of an employee’s job-related and non-job related experiences and functioning (Grant et al., 2007; Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2009; Zheng et al., 2015). It comprises an employee’s psychological experience and life satisfaction in addition to job satisfaction (Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2009; Zheng et al., 2015). Similarly, for employees of a service provider, well-being can be exhibited through several indices such as personal growth and optimal functioning besides the absence of physical and psychological strain (Meyer & Maltin, 2010). Thus, the provider has the possibility to deploy organizational efforts and initiatives to shape these conditions and make a positive contribution to its employees’well-being (Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2009). However, the likely nexus between a provider’s various efforts and well-being outcomes may also hinge on the nature and extent of employees’involvement in the organization. This brings the notion of employee engagement, which indicates the extent to which an employee is absorbed in the performance of his or her roles related to the job and organization (Saks, 2006). Employee engagement has cognitive, emotional and behavioural elements that guide an employee’s intention to act, which occurs as an exchange for an organization’s efforts and initiatives directed towards its employees (Saks, 2006; Shuck & Reio, 2014). As a mechanism of an organization’s efforts and initiatives, a service provider can extend supports to its employees. Especially, organizational support is one of the means by which a provider can contribute to various employee-focused outcomes (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2009; Saks, 2006). From the employees’perspective, organizational support shows their perception about the extent to which an organization takes care of their contribution and well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In addition to well-being, perceived organizational support (POS) has implications for employees’engagement to their job and organization (Saks, 2006). Similarly, a service provider can involve employees through empowering them so they can exercise decision-making freedom and take responsibility for their actions and performance outcomes (Greasley et al., 2008). Particularly, organizational empowerment efforts in terms of assisting employee decision-making, allowing employee participation in professional decisions, and providing access to information can influence employees’perception about the extent of their empowerment (Matthews et al., 2003; Peterson & Zimmerman, 2004). Perceived Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 2 of 19 organizational empowerment can affect outcomes such as job satisfaction and engagement (Aryee & Chen, 2006; Ugwu et al., 2014). Service marketing and management studies also recognized the use of organizational initiatives (e.g., employee empowerment) and their connections to outcomes such as job satisfaction and engagement (Bowen & Lawler, 1995a,1992; Glynn & Lehtinen, 1995; Suh et al., 2011; Yoon et al., 2001). Despite the fact that prior studies emphasized the role of organizational support and empowerment, little is known about the direct and indirect effects of them when a service provider takes these initiatives together to bring meaningful changes to employees’multifaceted well-being outcomes through their engagement. In line with this gap in the extant service marketing and management literature, including the emergent TSR domain, it is important to know how a service provider’s concurrent use of multiple initiatives can affect employees’well-being and engagement. The need for this knowledge emanates from the fact that a provider organization has the possibility to undertake several employee-facing initiatives at the same time. For instance, a healthcare service provider can prioritize employees’goals, values, and opinions in addition to allow them to have decision-making freedom. When taken together, these multiple organizational initiatives could create differential effects on employee wellbeing directly or indirectly than when they would be used in isolation. Furthermore, although prior studies in the TSR domain have examined various matters related to employee well-being (e.g., Edgar et al., 2017;Rayburn,2014; Sharma et al., 2016), they provide no account of how organizational support and empowerment could collectively influence several aspects of service employees’wellbeing and engagement. This study proposes that an integrated scheme that builds on a service provider’s organizational support and empowerment would provide new insights in facilitating employee well-being, which can further contribute to the provision of transformative services. Against this backdrop, the purpose of this study is to examine the direct and indirect effects of organizational support and empowerment on employee well-being. Specifically, the study aims to: (a) explore the direct effect of POS and empowerment on employee well-being, (b) identify the indirect effect of POS and empowerment on employee well-being through employee engagement. Addressing the gap and the corresponding aims can expand our current understanding of service providers’role in facilitating employee well-being. Thus, it explains how a provider can go beyond the monetary interests of its own and contribute to superior non-monetary interests of its internal customers. Furthermore, it can broaden our views by explaining the role of employee engagement as an intermediate factor in facilitating well-being outcomes of service employees. Thus, addressing the gap offers the opportunity to identify a path to enhance employee well-being in the presence of a service provider’s support and empowerment efforts and initiatives. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the theoretical framework and hypotheses development. Section 3 elaborates the methodological underpinnings of the study. Section 4 explains the results of the study. Section 5 offers discussions and implications. The limitations and future research directions are discussed in the concluding section. 2. Theoretical framework and hypothesis development 2.1. Perceived organizational support POS refers to employees’beliefs about the degree to which an organization values their contributions and well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). It is connected to employees’orientation toward their organization and also favourable behavioural outcomes (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). Employees can evaluate organizational support in terms of organization’s efforts towards considering employees’goals and opinions, complaints, job enrichment, well-being, and willingness to help them in problem situations among others (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Extant studies suggested that POS has several precursors. For example, fairness is a strong precursor of POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). It can also be affected by supervisor support, organizational rewards, and job conditions (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). On the other hand, POS influences organizational commitment, turnover intention, performance, job-related affect, Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 3 of 19 psychological well-being and others (Aube et al., 2007; Dawley et al., 2010; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2009; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). POS can increase employees’ affective attachment to the organization and expectations about receiving greater rewards for their efforts (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Thus, employees’assessment of organizational support is multi-faceted and has employeeand organizational-level consequences. 2.2. Organizational empowerment Empowerment is a multifaceted concept that can be defined from individual, organizational, and societal/community perspectives (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995;Peterson&Zimmerman,2004). At the individual level, empowerment designates to a process that facilitates the achievement of an individual’s personal goals through participation with others (Maton & Salem, 1995; Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995). In the employee context, empowerment refers to “a form of employee involvement initiative … and focused on task-based involvement and attitudinal change”(Wilkinson, 1998, p. 40). A broader view of employee empowerment embraces matters such as freedom to take responsibility for employee’s decisions and actions, perceived control over the job, accountability for personal work, responsibility for performance outcomes among others (Greasley et al., 2008;Melhem,2004). Based on the inherent characteristics of empowerment initiatives, structural, motivational, and leadership-oriented approaches are used to empower employees (Menon, 2001). In the structural approach of employee empowerment, power and decision-making authority are given to some extent to the employees (Menon, 2001). Motivational employee empowerment embraces the psychological underpinnings that enable employees to understand the value of their work goals, competence, and work outcomes (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995). Thus, while the structural perspective of employee empowerment focuses on management’s practices for empowering employees, the psychological perspective emphasizes on employees’perceptions and beliefs about the extent to which they are empowered (Greasley et al., 2008;Spreitzer,1995;Thomas&Velthouse,1990). Furthermore, the leadership approach explains empowerment in terms of providing an employee with inspiration and vision for the future to enable him or her to take challenges and participate in the organizational changes (Menon, 2001). These conceptualizations have a key focus on empowerment at the individual level. Broadening the nuances of empowerment, organizational empowerment concept explains intraorganizational efforts for generating employees’psychological empowerment in terms of perceiving greater power, control, and ability to influence organizational effectiveness (Griffith et al., 2008; Peterson & Zimmerman, 2004;Zimmerman,2000). However, it also discusses interorganizational and extraorganizational components of empowerment explaining relations among organizations and impact of organizational actions on community or larger systems, respectively (Francescato & Aber, 2015; Griffith et al., 2008; Peterson & Zimmerman, 2004). In explaining these aspects of organizational empowerment, Zimmerman (2000) argued that producing psychological empowerment of employees through intraorganizational efforts is a nature of empowering organizations. Matthews et al. (2003)positedthat organizational empowerment initiatives of an empowering organization are characterized by dynamic structural framework that comprises clear guidelines for assisting employee decision-making, control of workplace decision that allows an employee to give input to all issues related to his or her career, and fluidity of information that enables an employee to get access to all information related to the organization. By doing these, an empowering organization has the possibility to move beyond achieving corporate goals to enhance personal, relational, and collective well-being (Francescato & Aber, 2015;Z immerman, 2000). 2.3. Employee engagement Engagement has been conceptualized from different perspectives such as need-satisfying approach, burnout-antithesis approach, satisfaction-engagement approach and multidimensional approach (Bailey et al., 2017;Shuck,2011). The need-satisfying approach explained engagement in terms of expression of one’s self at work that can facilitate role performance (Shuck, 2011). Burnout-antithesis approach defines engagement as a positive affective state of mind that is directed towards tasks (Shuck, 2011). This approach, alternatively known as the work task engagement approach, argues that Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 4 of 19 an employee with a positive state of mind has strong dedication in work-related activities (Bailey et al., 2017). According to satisfaction-engagement approach, engagement indicates an individual’sinvolvement, satisfaction, and enthusiasm for work (Harter et al., 2002;Shuck,2011). The multidimensional approach of employee engagement (Bailey et al., 2017;Shuck,2011) combines a number of dimensions of engagement. Saks (2006, p. 602) posited that employee engagement is “a distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural components that are associated with individual role performance”. According to this approach, engagement involves not just job engagement, but it also includes organization engagement (Saks, 2006). In this current study, employee engagement is viewed from this multidimensional perspective. 2.4. Employee well-being Well-being is a multidimensional concept that has been conceptualized from diverse perspectives. For example, Ryan and Deci (2001, p. 142) defined well-being as an optimal psychological functioning and experience. From a philosophical standpoint, well-being can be either hedonic dealing with life satisfaction and affect or eudaimonic dealing with meaning, purpose and growth (Lent, 2004). The contextual dimension of well-being brings the notion of employee or worker well-being, among others (Lent, 2004). Employee well-being can be viewed as an employee’s overall experience and functioning at work that involves psychological, physical and social dimensions of well-being (Grant et al., 2007). In explaining employee well-being from employee’s mental health perspective, Page and Vella-Brodrick (2009) argued that employee well-being includes subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and workplace well-being. Consistent with this perspective, Zheng et al. (2015) define employee well-being as a combination of life well-being, workplace well-being, and psychological well-being. This current study adopts this later conceptualization of employee well-being. 2.5. Organizational support—employee engagement—employee well-being POS indicates employees’evaluation of various supports received from the host organization. Employees respond to the greater level of POS by demonstrating greater felt obligation, commitment (e.g., affective, normative), and performance (Aube et al., 2007; Eisenberger et al., 2001; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Enhanced commitment is likely to drive employees to demonstrate greater involvement with the service provider and their tasks. Besides, POS has a positive association with job engagement (Rich et al., 2010). This reasoning is consistent with the study of Saks (2006), which identified the positive influence of POS on employee engagement in terms of job engagement and organization empowerment. As the extant studies are limited in establishing this relationship, thus the current study revisits the hypothesized relationship between POS and employee engagement as proposed by Saks (2006). Thus, it is hypothesized: H1: Perceived organizational support of a service provider has an influence on employee engagement. POS also reflects employees’beliefs about an organization’s efforts to their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Prior studies argued that POS has a relationship with employees’affective reactions such as job satisfaction and mood (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Employees’evaluation of affective states indicates their subjective well-being since it comprises of components such as emotional responses, domain satisfaction (e.g., job or work satisfaction), and life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1999). In addition, organizational support can help an employee to develop positive relations with others and realize personal growth. Positive relations with others and personal growth are the components of psychological well-being (Lent, 2004). Thus, it is hypothesized: H2: Perceived organizational support of a service provider has an influence on employee wellbeing. 2.6. Organizational empowerment—employee engagement—employee well-being Organizational empowerment allows employees to exercise control over workplace decisions and get access to pertinent information in a structured environment (Matthews et al., 2003). Similarly, Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 5 of 19 empowering service employees make them feel to have control over their job, awareness of the business context and accountability for outcomes (Bowen & Lawler, 1995b). Empowered service employees are likely to be more engaged in their tasks, such as interactions with customers (Lashley, 1999). For example, a study involving community health service employees suggested that perceived empowerment leads to greater motivation, engagement, commitment, and connection to the organization (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011). It can be argued that organizational empowerment has consequences for employees’involvement and commitment to their job and organization. Thus, the hypothesis is: H3: Perceived organizational empowerment of a service provider has an influence on employee engagement. Employees’perception of empowerment can lead to outcomes such as job satisfaction and subsequently to highly motivated employees (Bowen & Lawler, 1995b). Job satisfaction represents contextual well-being since it shows whether an employee is happy or satisfied with his or her job (Lent, 2004). Furthermore, as empowerment allows employees to have control over their decisions and responsibilities; thus, it can reduce role ambiguity and subsequently, emotional strain (Greasley et al., 2005). The reduction of emotional strain can be viewed as the improvement of positive affect, which is a key component of an individual’s subjective well-being (Diener et al., 1999;Lent,2004). Thus, it is hypothesized: H4: Perceived organizational empowerment of a service provider has an influence on employee wellbeing. 2.7. Employee engagement—employee well-being Employee engagement at the workplace can have consequences for health benefits for employees and positive financial performance outcomes for an organization (Harter et al., 2003). In assessing outcomes of employee engagement, Saks(2006) argued that employee engagement in terms of job and organization engagement predicts job satisfaction of employees. As discussed previously, job satisfaction can reflect employees’domain-specific well-being. A broader conception of employee engagement suggests that employee engagement and psychological well-being can have potential relationships (Robertson & Cooper, 2010). In a recent study, Shuck and Reio (2014) suggested that employee engagement moderates the relationship between psychological workplace climate and emotional exhaustion, psychological well-being, among others. For example, the relation between workplace climate and psychological well-being was stronger when the level of employee engagement was high (Shuck & Reio, 2014). Thus, this study assumes that employee engagement can act as an influencing factor for employee well-being. Figure 1depicts the hypothesized relationships. H5: Employee engagement has a significant influence on service employees’well-being. H4 H2 Organisational Support H1 Employee Engagement Employee Well-being H5 H3 Organisational Empowerment Figure 1. Theoretical framework of the study. Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 6 of 19 3. Method 3.1. Data collection This study used a cross-sectional field survey for collecting data from the employees of a rehabilitation service provider in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The service provider, Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Paralysed (CRP), is the leading organization in the country that offers therapeutic and medical services to individuals with disabilities. The organization provided written approval for conducting the survey at the main branch located at Savar, Dhaka. As suggested procedural approaches to deal with common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the respondents were informed about the anonymity of their responses and that the questions have no right or wrong answers. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed in person to the employees of the service provider during August–September 2018. Before starting the final survey, a pretest of the questionnaire was carried out among a small number of employees (n= 6) of the organization. A pretest can include a small sample ranging between 5 and 10 participants who are as similar as possible to the final sample of a survey (Reynolds et al., 1993). After making minute adjustments to the questionnaire based on the responses from the pretest, the final survey was initiated. At the beginning of the survey, each respondent was required to indicate if he or she had agreed to participate in the survey. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part comprised questions related to the background information (e.g., age, gender, length of service, department) of the respondents. The second part of the questionnaire included questions about the study’s key constructs. The centre had 735 permanent employees in all branches across the country (Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Paralysed, 2017) and the main branch had approximately 300 such employees. Of this, 195 questionnaires were distributed. From these questionnaires, 173 questionnaires were returned. Unusable and incomplete responses (n= 20) were removed. This produced the final sample 153, which indicates a response rate of 78.46%. 3.2. Measures The study adapted the existing scale items for measuring the study constructs. POS was measured by six items taken from Eisenberger et al. (1986). Six items were adapted from Matthews et al. (2003) for measuring organizational empowerment. Saks (2006) measured employee engagement in terms of job engagement and organization engagement. The current study took four items from Saks (2006) for measuring employee engagement construct. Zheng et al. (2015) argued that overall employee well-being could be measured in terms of life well-being, workplace well-being, and psychological well-being. The present study adopted this notion and thus took six items from Zheng et al. (2015) for measuring employee well-being. All items for measuring the constructs drew on 7-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). One item for measuring POS and two items for measuring organizational empowerment were reverse coded. The Bengali version of the questionnaire was distributed to the respondents. To check for the consistency of meaning between the Bengali and the original English versions, the Bengali version was back-translated into the English version. 4. Data analysis and results 4.1. Data analysis The sample (n= 153) of the study comprised about 55% female respondents as against 45% male respondents. More than 61% of the respondents aged between 25 and 34 years. In terms of the length of job tenure at the CRP, more than 37% of employees confirmed that they have been working in the organization for more than six years. This was followed by those employees who have been working for one to two years (about 26%). Among the respondents, approximately 59% were therapists. The service provider also provides education and training services to individuals who want to develop their career in rehabilitation and therapeutic services. Thus, the respondents included teaching staffs (16.34%) of the organization. The profile of the respondents is summarized in Table 1. Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 7 of 19 Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology,78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management,31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0149206305279602 Danaher, T. S., & Gallan, A. S. (2016). Service research in health care: Positively impacting lives. Journal of Service Research,19(4), 433–437. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1094670516666346 Dawley, D., Houghton, J. D., & Bucklew, N. S. (2010). Perceived organizational support and turnover intention: The mediating effects of personal sacrifice and job fit. The Journal of Social Psychology,150(3), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00224540903365463 Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin,125(2), 276–302. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 Edgar, F., Geare, A., Saunders, D., Beacker, M., & Faanunu, I. (2017). A transformative service research agenda: A study of workers’well-being. The Service Industries Journal,37(1), 84–104. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02642069.2017.1290797 Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42 Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology,75(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.75.1.51 Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12318-000 Elmadağ, A. B., Ellinger, A. E., & Franke, G. R. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of frontline service employee commitment to service quality. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,16(2), 95–110. https:// doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679160201 Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individuallevel cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal,50(3), 715–729. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj. 2007.25530866 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224378101800104 Francescato, D., & Aber, M. S. (2015). Learning from organizational theory to build organizational empowerment. Journal of Community Psychology,43 (6), 717–738. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21753 Glynn, W. J., & Lehtinen, U. (1995). The concept of exchange: Interactive approaches in services marketing. In W. J. Glynn & J. G. Barnes (Eds.), Understanding services management (pp. 89–118). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Goldstein, S. M. (2003). Employee development: An examination of service strategy in a high-contact service environment. Production and Operations Management,12(2), 186–203. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1937-5956.2003.tb00500.x Grant, A. M., Christianson, M. K., & Price, R. H. (2007). Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. Academy of Management Perspectives,21(3), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.26421238 Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Naismith, N., & Soetanto, R. (2008). Understanding empowerment from an employee perspective: What does it mean and do they want it? Team Performance Management: An International Journal,14(1/2), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590810860195 Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Soetanto,R.,&King,N.(2005). Employee perceptions of empowerment. Employee Relations,27(4), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 01425450510605697 Griffith, D. M., Allen, J. O., Zimmerman, M. A., MorrelSamuels, S., Reischl, T. M., Cohen, S. E., & Campbell, K. A. (2008). Organizational empowerment in community mobilization to address youth violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,34 (3S), S89–S99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007. 12.015 Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to the future. Journal of Marketing Management,28(13–14), 1520–1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.737357 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall. Hair, J. F., Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications Inc. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,19(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/ MTP1069-6679190202 Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review,26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR10-2013-0128 Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2003). Wellbeing in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 205–224). American Psychological Association. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Businessunit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2. 268 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In T. Cavusgil, R. R. Sinkovics, & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in international marketing - new challenges to international marketing (pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., …Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 14 of 19 Organizational Research Methods,17(2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928 Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E., Jr., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164–170. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal,20(2), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266 (199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7 Kapiriri, L., & Martin, D. K. (2006). Priority setting in developing countries health care institutions: The case of a Ugandan hospital. BMC Health Services Research,6 (1), 127. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-127 Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement,48(4), 1075–1079. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013164488484024 Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management,43(6), 1854–1884. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0149206315575554 Lashley, C. (1999). Employee empowerment in services: A framework for analysis. Personnel Review,28(3), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00483489910264570 Lent, R. W. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical perspective on well-being and psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology,51(4), 482–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.482 Lloyd, A. E., & Luk, S. T. K. (2011). Interaction behaviors leading to comfort in the service encounter. Journal of Services Marketing,25(3), 176–189. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/08876041111129164 Mansfield, E. R., & Helms, B. P. (1982). Detecting multicollinearity. The American Statistician,36(3a), 158–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1982. 10482818 Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology,23(5), 631–656. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02506985 Matthews, R. A., Diaz, W. M., & Cole, S. G. (2003). The organizational empowerment scale. Personnel Review,32(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00483480310467624 Melhem, Y. (2004). The antecedents of customer-contact employees’empowerment. Employee Relations,26 (1), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 01425450410506913 Menon, S. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology,50(1), 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00052 Meyer, J. P., & Maltin, E. R. (2010). Employee commitment and well-being: A critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior,77(2), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jvb.2010.04.007 Nasr, L., Burton, J., Gruber, T., & Kitshoff, J. (2014). Exploring the impact of customer feedback on the well-being of service entities: A TSR perspective. Journal of Service Management,25(4), 531–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-01-2014-0022 Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory.McGraw-Hill. Ostrom, A. L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D. E., Patricio, L., & Voss, C. A. (2015). Service research priorities in a rapidly changing context. Journal of Service Research,18(2), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1094670515576315 Page, K. M., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2009). The ‘what’,‘- why’and ‘how’of employee well-being: A new model. Social Indicators Research,90(3), 441–458. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9270-3 Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2009). Perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior,75(2), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.002 Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application. American Journal of Community Psychology,23(5), 569–579. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02506982 Peterson, N. A., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2004). Beyond the individual: Toward a nomological network of organizational empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology,34(1–2), 129–145. https://doi. org/10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040151.77047.58 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.88.5.879 Rayburn, S. W. (2014). Improving service employee work affect: The transformative potential of work design. Journal of Services Marketing,28(1), 71–81. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2012-0042 Reynolds, N., Diamantopoulos, A., & Schlegelmilch, B. (1993). Pre-testing in questionnaire design: A review of the literature and suggestions for further research. International Journal of Market Research,35(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078539303500202 Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology,87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698 Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal,53 (3), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010. 51468988 Robertson, I. T., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Full engagement: The integration of employee engagement and psychological well-being. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,31(4), 324–336. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/01437731011043348 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.52.1.141 Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology,21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02683940610690169 Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology,90(6), 1217–1227. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217 Sharma, P., Kong, T. T. C., & Kingshott, R. P. (2016). Internal service quality as a driver of employee satisfaction, commitment and performance: Exploring the focal role of employee well-being. Journal of Service Management,27(5), 773–797. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2015-0294 Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 15 of 19 Shuck, B. (2011). Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review,10(3), 304–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311410840 Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2014). Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,21(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1548051813494240 Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865 Stenberg, K., Hanssen, O., Edejer, T. T. T., Bertram, M., Brindley, C., Meshreky, A., Rosen, J. E., Stover, J., Verboom, P., Sanders, R., & Soucat, A. (2017). Financing transformative health systems towards achievement of the health sustainable development goals: A model for projected resource needs in 67 low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet Global Health,5(9), e875–e887. https://doi. org/10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30263-2 Suh, T., Houston, M. B., Barney, S. M., & Kwon, I. W. G. (2011). The impact of mission fulfillment on the internal audience: Psychological job outcomes in a services setting. Journal of Service Research,14(1), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510387915 Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive”model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,15(4), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr. 1990.4310926 Ugwu, F. O., Onyishi, I. E., & Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M. (2014). Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: The role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review,43(3), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11–2012-0198 Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review,27(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10. 1108/00483489810368549 Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,12(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.93 Yee, R. W., Yeung, A. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2011). The service-profit chain: An empirical analysis in high-contact service industries. International Journal of Production Economics,130(2), 236–245. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.01.001 Yoon, M. H., Beatty, S. E., & Suh, J. (2001). The effect of work climate on critical employee and customer outcomes: An employee-level analysis. International Journal of Service Industry Management,12(5), 500–521. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EUM0000000006095 Zheng, X., Zhu, W., Zhao, H., & Zhang, C. (2015). Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior,36(5), 621–644. https:// doi.org/10.1002/job.1990 Zimmerman, M. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community level analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 16 of 19 Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43–63). Plenum. Appendix A. Evaluation of the convergent validity of the measurement or outer model Constructs Indicators/items Outer loadings Organizational Support (OS) The organization considers my goals and values. (OS1) 0.892 The organization cares about my opinions. (OS2) 0.868 Help is available from the organization when I have a problem. (OS3) 0.827 The organization tries to make my job as interesting as possible. (OS4) 0.794 The organization really cares about my well-being. (OS6) 0.826 Organizational Empowerment (OE) The organization provides information about what it wants to accomplish in the future. (OE1) 0.823 The organization provides information about how its objectives are going to be achieved. (OE2) 0.831 I have a say in defining my job responsibilities. (OE4) 0.672 Employee Engagement (EN) I am highly engaged in my job. (EN1) 0.596 I am highly engaged in this organization. (EN3) 0.613 Being a member of this organization is very captivating. (EN4) 0.866 Employee Well-being (EWB) I feel satisfied with my life. (EWB1) 0.805 I am close to my dream in most aspects of my life. (EWB2) 0.791 I am satisfied with my work responsibilities. (EWB3) 0.817 I find real enjoyment in my work. (EWB4) 0.823 Items OS5, OE3, OE5, OE6, EN2, EWB5, and EWB6 were removed during the measurement model evaluation for having low loadings. Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 17 of 19 Appendix B. Evaluation of the discriminant validity of the measurement or outer model Cross-Loadings Indicators/items Organizational Support (OS) Organizational Empowerment (OE) Employee Engagement (EN) Employee Wellbeing (EWB) The organization considers my goals and values. (OS1) 0.892 0.491 0.535 0.520 The organization cares about my opinions. (OS2) 0.868 0.463 0.502 0.535 Help is available from the organization when I have aproblem.(OS3) 0.827 0.493 0.423 0.407 The organization tries to make my job as interesting as possible. (OS4) 0.794 0.543 0.424 0.422 The organization really cares about my well-being. (OS6) 0.826 0.603 0.402 0.487 The organization provides information about what it wants to accomplish in the future. (OE1) 0.532 0.823 0.281 0.322 The organization provides information about how its objectives are going to be achieved. (OE2) 0.554 0.831 0.296 0.332 I have a say in defining my job responsibilities. (OE4) 0.352 0.672 0.366 0.420 I am highly engaged in my job. (EN1) 0.227 0.315 0.596 0.121 I am highly engaged in this organization. (EN3) 0.248 0.243 0.613 0.173 Being a member of this organization is very captivating. (EN4) 0.542 0.342 0.866 0.592 I feel satisfied with my life. (EWB1) 0.462 0.321 0.441 0.805 I am close to my dream in most aspects of my life. (EWB2) 0.520 0.365 0.426 0.791 I am satisfied with my work responsibilities. (EWB3) 0.428 0.478 0.372 0.817 I find real enjoyment in my work. (EWB4) 0.422 0.373 0.488 0.823 The values presented in the non-shaded areas represent the cross-loadings for the items across the constructs of the study. Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 18 of 19 Fornell-Larcker Criterion © 2020 The Author(s). Thisopen access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share —copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt —remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution —You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: •Immediate, universal access to your article on publication •High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online •Download and citation statistics for your article •Rapid online publication •Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards •Retention of full copyright of your article •Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article •Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Employee Engagement Employee Wellbeing Organizational Empowerment Organizational Support Employee Engagement 0.703 Employee Well-being 0.535 0.809 Organizational Empowerment 0.416 0.474 0.779 Organizational Support 0.547 0.567 0.611 0.842 Rahman et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1767329 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1767329 Page 19 of 19