Mapping the Empowerment Pathways: A Disaggregated Analysis of Structural Levers, Psychological Mechanisms, and Job Satisfaction

Mapping the Empowerment Pathways: A Disaggregated Analysis of Structural Levers, Psychological Mechanisms, and Job Satisfaction | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Mapping the Empowerment Pathways: A Disaggregated Analysis of Structural Levers, Psychological Mechanisms, and Job Satisfaction Rabih Bedwany Makhlouf This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8805683/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Employee empowerment is a widely recognized driver of job satisfaction; however, much of the existing literature conceptualizes it as a monolithic construct, overlooking the specific pathways through which different organizational conditions exert their effects. This study addresses this gap by disaggregating empowerment and testing a parallel mediation model that links distinct structural factors to specific psychological experiences. Drawing on survey data from 480 employees in the Lebanese banking sector, the study examines how Role Clarity and Access to Growth Opportunities influence job satisfaction through the psychological dimensions of meaning, autonomy, impact, and self-efficacy. Bootstrapped parallel mediation analyses reveal a nuanced pattern of effects. Role Clarity enhances job satisfaction primarily by strengthening employees’ sense of meaning and perceived impact. In contrast, Access to Growth Opportunities exhibits a significant negative indirect effect through competence and no significant indirect effect through autonomy, suggesting a potential competence–autonomy tradeoff whereby formal growth structures may undermine satisfaction derived from feeling capable. These relationships remain stable across employee tenure and seniority levels. The study contributes to empowerment theory by advancing a pathway-focused framework that challenges the assumption that all structural empowerment components operate uniformly. From a practical standpoint, the findings indicate that managers should prioritize role clarity to foster meaningful work and carefully design growth opportunities to mitigate unintended psychological costs. Overall, the results support a shift away from generic empowerment initiatives toward more targeted and strategically designed interventions. Psychology Management Structural empowerment psychological empowerment job satisfaction role clarity parallel mediation growth opportunities competence-autonomy tradeoff Figures Figure 1 Introduction In the complex context of contemporary organizations, employee empowerment is widely recognized as a critical driver of retention, innovation, and performance. Drawing on the foundational works of Kanter ( 1977 , 1983) and Spreitzer ( 1995 ), empowerment is commonly conceptualized as a dual-faceted construct. Structural empowerment—encompassing sociopolitical support and access to resources, opportunities, and information—enables employee action, whereas psychological empowerment—reflecting experienced autonomy, meaning, competence, and impact—motivates such action. A substantial body of empirical evidence confirms that empowered employees report higher levels of commitment, job satisfaction, and productivity, thereby constituting a sustainable source of competitive advantage for organizations (Maynard et al., 2012 ; Seibert et al., 2011 ). Despite this well-established relationship, a significant limitation characterizes much of the empowerment literature. Both structural and psychological empowerment are predominantly treated as monolithic, composite constructs (Spreitzer, 1995 ; Laschinger et al., 2001 ). While this approach offers methodological parsimony, it conceals an important theoretical question: do all components of structural empowerment influence employee outcomes through the same psychological pathways? For instance, does clarifying job roles enhance employee satisfaction in the same manner as providing training and advancement opportunities? The assumption of equivalence implicit in composite modeling lacks strong theoretical justification and empirical support. Consequently, although the effectiveness of empowerment is well documented, our understanding of the precise mechanisms through which it operates remains limited. This gap is particularly salient in highly structured and turbulent contexts such as the Lebanese banking sector. Once a pillar of economic stability, the sector has experienced severe disruptions in recent years, including substantial losses in deposit value, liquidity shortages and insolvency, currency devaluation, and large-scale workforce reductions (Chami, 2023 ; Hage Boutros, 2024). In such a crisis-laden environment, organizations must rely on clear, evidence-based interventions to sustain morale and retain talent. Broad, undifferentiated empowerment initiatives risk misallocating scarce organizational resources. What managers require instead is a precise, evidence-based blueprint that identifies which specific organizational levers (e.g., role clarity versus access to growth opportunities) most effectively cultivate particular psychological experiences (e.g., meaning versus competence) that drive critical outcomes such as job satisfaction. This study addresses this need for precision by disaggregating the empowerment construct. Rather than relying on composite indices, we employ a parallel mediation framework to examine the central research question: through which distinct psychological pathways do different dimensions of structural empowerment influence job satisfaction? Focusing on two theoretically distinct structural levers—Role Clarity and Access to Growth Opportunities—we hypothesize that they operate through different psychological channels (Meaning and Impact versus Competence) and may involve a competence–autonomy tradeoff. By delineating these specific pathways, this research seeks to move the discussion beyond the generic prescription to “empower employees” toward a more nuanced, empirically grounded model that supports targeted managerial interventions and advances empowerment theory with greater conceptual and practical precision 2.1 The Need for Precision in Empowerment Literature Employee empowerment is a well-recognized antecedent of positive organizational outcomes, including employee satisfaction, commitment, and performance (Maynard et al., 2012 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ). Decades of empirical research have robustly demonstrated that empowered employees tend to be more resilient, innovative, and motivated, thereby generating a valuable source of sustainable competitive advantage for organizations (Barney, 1991 ; Jian et al., 2016 ). Despite this substantial body of empirical evidence, a significant shortcoming persists in the way empowerment is typically examined. The dominant approach conceptualizes empowerment—particularly its structural dimensions—as a monolithic, aggregated construct (Seibert et al., 2011 ). Empirical studies frequently combine heterogeneous workplace conditions—such as role clarity, sociopolitical support, and access to information, resources, opportunities, and rewards—into a single structural empowerment index (Laschinger et al., 2001 ). While this approach offers analytical simplicity, it raises a critical theoretical and practical question: do all structural empowerment components function in the same way and exert equivalent effects within a given organizational context? This composite perspective implicitly assumes that distinct structural elements influence employee attitudes through identical psychological pathways. However, classical empowerment theory suggests otherwise. Kanter ( 1977 , 1993 ) originally conceptualized empowerment as comprising multiple structural dimensions—information, support, resources, and opportunities—each facilitating employee effectiveness through different mechanisms. It is therefore plausible that these dimensions exert differentiated effects on employees’ psychological experiences. For example, clearly defined roles may enhance a sense of meaningfulness, whereas access to strategic information may strengthen perceptions of impact. Addressing this limitation, the present study moves beyond composite indices to disaggregate structural empowerment and examine its underlying mechanisms. Specifically, it investigates the distinct psychological pathways through which selected structural features—namely role clarity and access to growth opportunities—affect job satisfaction. By employing a disaggregated parallel mediation design, this study aims to offer a more precise and practically relevant account of how empowerment operates within highly structured organizations operating in turbulent contexts, such as the Lebanese banking sector. 2.2 Disentangling Structural Empowerment: Beyond a Composite Structural empowerment, as theorized by Kanter ( 1977 , 1993 ), is inherently multidimensional. It refers to the structural conditions of the work environment—embedded in organizational policies, practices, and resource allocations—that enable employees to perform their roles effectively. Kanter’s framework identifies several distinct yet interrelated dimensions, including: Sociopolitical Support : Access to guidance, feedback, and advocacy from supervisors, peers, and subordinates. Access to Information : Knowledge of organizational goals, values, financial conditions, and the technical expertise required to carry out one’s job. Access to Resources : Availability of time, budget, materials, and equipment necessary for task execution. Access to Opportunities : Availability of training, professional development, and career advancement prospects. Role Clarity : Clear communication of job descriptions and a well-defined understanding of job requirements, tasks, and performance expectations. Access to Rewards : Appropriate financial and non-financial recognition for employee contributions. Despite this explicit multidimensionality, the majority of empirical studies operationalize structural empowerment as an aggregated or higher-order construct (Spreitzer, 1995 ; Laschinger et al., 2001 ). This methodological convention, while facilitating analytical parsimony, entails a significant conceptual cost: it conflates potentially distinct underlying mechanisms. Aggregating these dimensions into a single index rests on the implicit assumption that they are functionally equivalent and substitutable in their effects across different organizational contexts and employee psychological experiences. Yet, the effectiveness of specific work contexts often depends on different structural levers—for example, information-intensive versus technically intensive environments—suggesting that not all dimensions operate uniformly. This assumption is questionable from both theoretical and practical perspectives. For instance, providing clear role definitions is structurally distinct from offering growth opportunities such as training and career development pathways. Growth opportunities are typically designed to enhance competence and signal future organizational investment, whereas role clarity provides immediate cognitive structure and delineates boundaries of responsibility and impact. It is therefore unlikely that these two managerial interventions influence employees’ psychological experiences in the same way. One may primarily strengthen a sense of meaning, while the other may primarily enhance self-efficacy. Building on this reasoning, the present study argues that advancing empowerment theory and practice requires a shift in focus—from asking whether structural empowerment is effective to examining how specific structural components operate and through which psychological pathways they exert their influence. By decomposing structural empowerment, this research seeks to identify which organizational levers are most effective in fostering particular psychological experiences (meaning, autonomy, competence, and impact) within the Lebanese banking context. Such an approach enables more targeted and context-sensitive managerial interventions. The following section therefore examines the psychological dimensions that are likely to function as these distinct mediating pathways. 2.3 The Psychological Pathways: Autonomy, Competence, Meaning, and Impact as Distinct Mediators While the structural perspective in empowerment research focuses on organizational conditions that enable employees to perform their work, the psychological perspective emphasizes employees’ cognitive and motivational states—that is, their subjective experience of being empowered (Conger & Kanungo, 1988 ; Eylon & Bamberger, 2000 ). Drawing on Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory, psychological empowerment was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct by Thomas and Velthouse ( 1990 ) and subsequently refined and operationalized by Spreitzer ( 1995 ). This framework comprises four distinct cognitive dimensions: Self-Determination (Autonomy) : The perception of choice and control in initiating, regulating, and executing one’s work activities. Competence (Self-Efficacy) : The belief in one’s capability to perform work tasks effectively and skillfully. Meaning : The alignment between one’s work role and personal values, beliefs, and standards within the organizational context. Impact : The perception that one can influence operational, administrative, or strategic outcomes at work. 2.3.1 From Dimensions to Differential Pathways Importantly, these dimensions are not merely interchangeable facets of a single psychological state; rather, they represent distinct cognitive pathways through which organizational structures may influence employee outcomes (Spreitzer, 2008 ). Nevertheless, similar to the structural empowerment literature, empirical research frequently aggregates these dimensions into a composite index of psychological empowerment (e.g., Spreitzer, 1995 ; Zhang & Bartol, 2010 ). This practice implicitly assumes that all dimensions are similarly affected by antecedent conditions and exert uniform effects on outcomes—an assumption that lacks strong theoretical justification. A more nuanced perspective suggests that specific structural conditions are likely to foster specific psychological experiences. For instance, role clarity—by specifying tasks, responsibilities, and how individual roles contribute to broader organizational objectives—may be particularly effective in cultivating a sense of meaning and perceived impact. In contrast, access to growth opportunities such as training initiatives may enhance employees’ skills and confidence, thereby strengthening competence, but may not necessarily increase self-determination if such opportunities are perceived as mandatory, externally imposed, or controlling. This reasoning leads to the central proposition of the present study: to fully understand how empowerment operates, it is necessary to move beyond a generalized mediation model (structural empowerment → overall psychological empowerment → job satisfaction) toward a model of specific parallel mediation. We argue that the relationship between structural empowerment and job satisfaction is transmitted through discrete—and potentially competing—psychological pathways rather than through a unitary psychological experience. The following section integrates the structural and psychological perspectives to derive specific hypotheses concerning these differentiated pathways. 2.4 Job Satisfaction: The Critical Attitudinal Outcome Job satisfaction—defined as a positive or pleasant emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or work experiences (Locke, 1976 )—is a central pillar of organizational effectiveness. A substantial body of research links job satisfaction to higher productivity, customer satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and lower turnover intentions, rendering it a key source of competitive advantage (Griffeth et al., 2000 ; Kurdi et al., 2020). Conversely, dissatisfaction is associated with absenteeism, withdrawal, and counterproductive behaviors, imposing significant costs on organizations (Atchison, 1999 ). Accordingly, identifying the structural and psychological antecedents of job satisfaction remains a core concern in organizational research and practice. Empirical evidence consistently identifies employee empowerment as a strong predictor of job satisfaction (Abou Elnaga & Imran, 2014 ; Singh & Jain, 2013 ). However, despite the robustness of this relationship, the psychological mechanisms explaining how and why different structural empowerment components translate into satisfaction remain insufficiently specified. Much of the literature treats empowerment as a unitary construct, leaving an important theoretical gap: it remains unclear whether distinct structural levers (e.g., role clarity versus growth opportunities) influence satisfaction through identical psychological processes or through differentiated—and potentially competing—cognitive pathways. This study addresses this gap by conceptualizing job satisfaction as the distal outcome in a disaggregated parallel mediation model, explicitly mapping the psychological mechanisms through which specific workplace structures generate positive affective evaluations. 2.5 Toward a Precise Model of Empowerment: Integrating Structure, Psychology, and Outcomes The preceding discussion highlights three key premises: (1) structural empowerment is inherently multidimensional, (2) psychological empowerment comprises distinct cognitive experiences, and (3) the empowerment–job satisfaction relationship is empirically robust yet mechanistically underdeveloped. Integrating these insights reveals the central theoretical opportunity of this study: to move from a generic mediation framework toward a pathway-specific model that explains which structural components activate which psychological dimensions to foster job satisfaction, particularly within the highly regulated and volatile Lebanese banking sector. To operationalize this integration, the study focuses on two structurally distinct empowerment levers—Role Clarity and Access to Growth Opportunities—selected for their theoretical relevance and managerial salience. We propose that these levers operate through different psychological channels rather than exerting uniform effects. 2.5.1 The Role Clarity Pathway: Providing a Framework for Meaning and Impact Role clarity reduces work-related uncertainty by delineating responsibilities, expectations, tasks, and performance boundaries, thereby minimizing ambiguity regarding what is required and how success is evaluated (Kahn et al., 1964; Rizzo et al., 1970 ). From an uncertainty reduction perspective, clear role information enhances predictability, reduces anxiety and cognitive strain, and allows employees to redirect attention from sensemaking toward goal-directed action (Ashford & Cummings, 1983 ). Complementarily, goal-setting theory posits that clarity regarding goals and expectations strengthens motivation by clarifying the link between effort and outcomes and by directing attention toward task-relevant behaviors (Locke & Latham, 1990 ). Through these processes, role clarity is expected to activate two primary psychological experiences. First, by linking individual tasks to broader organizational objectives, role clarity enhances a sense of meaning, enabling employees to perceive their work as purposeful and worthwhile (Hackman & Oldham, 1976 ). Second, by defining role boundaries and objectives, it clarifies the domain within which employees can exert influence, thereby strengthening perceived impact (Spreitzer, 1995 ). Although role clarity may also relate to competence or autonomy, its core psychological function lies in structuring goal-relevant action and reducing uncertainty, rendering work efforts cognitively significant and consequential. Accordingly, we hypothesize that its effect on job satisfaction operates predominantly through these two pathways. H1 : Role clarity will exert a significant positive indirect effect on job satisfaction primarily through (a) meaning and (b) impact, rather than through (c) autonomy or (d) competence. 2.5.2 The Growth Opportunity Pathway: A Potential Competence–Autonomy Tradeoff Access to growth opportunities, such as training and promotion pathways, is typically regarded as an unequivocally positive structural resource. Drawing on human capital theory, such opportunities enhance employees’ skills and knowledge, thereby strengthening competence and self-efficacy (Becker, 1964 ). However, insights from self-determination theory suggest that formalized development systems may be experienced as controlling when they are perceived as mandatory, prescriptive, or contingent upon compliance (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Under such conditions, growth initiatives may inadvertently undermine perceived autonomy. Accordingly, we propose a divergent pattern in which growth opportunities enhance competence-based satisfaction while exerting a neutral or negative effect on autonomy-based satisfaction. H2 : Access to growth opportunities will demonstrate differential indirect effects on job satisfaction: a positive indirect effect through (a) competence, and a non-significant or negative indirect effect through (b) autonomy. 2.5.3 Consistency of Psychological Mechanisms Across Employee Groups If the proposed pathways reflect fundamental psychological processes through which individuals cognitively interpret workplace structures, they should remain relatively stable across employee groups. Although factors such as tenure and seniority may influence baseline levels of empowerment or satisfaction, they are unlikely to alter the core structural–psychological linkages. Testing this assumption provides evidence regarding the generalizability of the proposed model. H3 : The mediation pathways specified in H1 and H2 will remain consistent across employee groups, showing no significant moderation by (a) seniority or (b) organizational tenure. 2.6 The Integrated Model In summary, this study proposes and tests a disaggregated parallel mediation model (see Fig. 1 ) in which structural empowerment influences job satisfaction through distinct—and at times competing—psychological pathways. By doing so, it moves beyond generic prescriptions to “empower employees” and offers a targeted framework identifying which structural interventions most effectively cultivate the specific psychological experiences that underpin job satisfaction. Methodology 3.1 Data Collection and Sample Data were collected between June and August 2024 from employees in the Lebanese banking sector. The survey instrument included the following measures: Structural Empowerment : Fourteen items adapted from the Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire (CWEQ-II; Laschinger et al., 2001 ), assessing six dimensions: Access to Information, Access to Support, Access to Resources, Access to Opportunities, Role Clarity, and Access to Rewards. Psychological Empowerment : Twelve items from Spreitzer ( 1995 ), measuring four dimensions: Meaning, Competence, Self-Determination, and Impact. Job Satisfaction : Nine items adapted from Spector’s ( 1997 ) Job Satisfaction Survey. Demographic Variables : Age, gender, education level, seniority, organizational tenure, and income. Due to restrictions on formal access to Lebanese banks, data were collected using a snowball sampling technique , initiated through professional and personal networks. Participants received an anonymous Google Forms link distributed via WhatsApp. This approach is consistent with prior organizational research conducted in access-restricted or high-sensitivity contexts. A total of 486 responses were received. After screening for missing data on study variables, 480 complete responses were retained using listwise deletion , forming the final sample for analysis. Note This sample description mirrors that of Paper 1 to ensure transparency and consistency, while the present study applies a distinct analytical strategy focused on disaggregated constructs. 3.2 Measures All scale items were measured using 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Unlike the composite-score approach used in Paper 1, the present study analyzes disaggregated dimensions to examine specific structural–psychological pathways. Structural Empowerment Dimensions Subscale scores were computed as the mean of the relevant items: Access to Information : Mean of 2 items (organizational goals/values; financial information) Access to Support : Mean of 3 items (problem-solving advice; temporary help; supportive work climate) Access to Resources : Mean of 2 items (time availability; access to equipment/materials) Access to Opportunities : Mean of 2 items (skill development opportunities; promotion opportunities) Role Clarity : Mean of 2 items (task awareness; clarity of job description) Access to Rewards : Mean of 2 items (fair rewards; recognition of contributions) Psychological Empowerment Dimensions Meaning : Mean of 3 items assessing the personal significance of work Competence (Self-Efficacy) : Mean of 3 items assessing confidence in one’s capabilities Self-Determination (Autonomy) : Mean of 3 items assessing choice and independence at work Impact : Mean of 2 items assessing perceived influence over organizational outcomes Job Satisfaction Mean of 9 items assessing overall satisfaction with one’s job. All subscales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > .70; see Results). 3.3 Statistical Analysis All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 28, supplemented by Hayes’ PROCESS macro (version 4.2). The analytical strategy proceeded in three stages. 3.3.1 Preliminary Analyses Descriptive statistics and reliability analyses for all disaggregated variables Pearson correlation analyses to examine bivariate relationships and assess potential multicollinearity 3.3.2 Primary Analysis: Parallel Multiple Mediation To test the hypothesized psychological pathways, PROCESS Model 4 (parallel multiple mediation) was employed using 10,000 bootstrap resamples and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals. This approach was selected because it allows: Simultaneous estimation and comparison of multiple indirect effects through competing psychological mediators Isolation of the unique effect of focal structural predictors by statistically controlling for all other structural empowerment dimensions Robust inference without reliance on normality assumptions for indirect effects Two primary models were estimated: 1. Model 1 (Focal Analysis) : Testing the indirect effects of Role Clarity on Job Satisfaction through Meaning, Competence, Autonomy, and Impact, while controlling for the remaining structural empowerment dimensions 2. Supplementary Models : Examining Access to Growth Opportunities and other structural dimensions to identify potential tradeoffs across psychological pathways 3.3.3 Supplementary Analysis: Boundary Conditions To examine the robustness of the identified mediation pathways across employee groups, moderated mediation analyses (PROCESS Model 7) were conducted. Seniority and organizational tenure were entered as moderators of the structural–psychological paths to test whether the mediation effects varied across career stages. 3.3.4 Analytical Transparency All mediation models controlled for the same set of structural empowerment dimensions to ensure comparability across analyses. Indirect effects were interpreted using unstandardized coefficients and bootstrapped confidence intervals, supplemented by proportion-mediated estimates where appropriate. Results 4.1 Preliminary Analyses Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and intercorrelations among all study variables. All multi-item scales demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .81 to .85. The correlation matrix revealed significant positive bivariate relationships among the structural empowerment dimensions, psychological empowerment dimensions, and job satisfaction. Of note, Role Clarity showed the strongest correlation with overall Psychological Empowerment (*r* = .48, *p* < .01), while Meaning exhibited the strongest correlation with Job Satisfaction (*r* = .53, *p* < .01). The pattern of correlations provided preliminary support for testing mediation models while indicating no problematic multicollinearity (all VIFs < 3.0 in subsequent analyses). Table 1 Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Intercorrelations Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Support Access 3.45 0.78 (.83) 2. Information Access 3.21 0.85 .46** (.81) 3. Resource Access 3.67 0.72 .31** .24** (.79) 4. Opportunity Access 3.32 0.81 .59** .37** .29** (.82) 5. Role Clarity 3.89 0.69 .51** .24** .35** .35** (.85) 6. Rewards 3.28 0.76 .53** .41** .41** .42** .59** (.84) 7. Meaning 3.76 0.65 .40** .33** .30** .31** .38** .42** (.85) 8. Impact 3.41 0.73 .37** .21** .20** .23** .36** .32** .52** (.83) 9. Autonomy 3.92 0.58 .23** .14** .25** .07 .36** .34** .44** .43** (.81) 10. Efficacy 4.12 0.56 .43** .12** .02 .42** .39** .33** .55** .45** .44** (.82) 11. Job Satisfaction 3.55 0.71 .48** .31** .22** .33** .46** .53** .53** .40** .33** .33** Note. N = 480. Values in parentheses on the diagonal are Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Correlations are reported below the diagonal. p < .01. 4.2 Testing the Differential Pathways of Role Clarity (H1) Hypothesis 1 proposed that Role Clarity would influence job satisfaction through specific psychological pathways, primarily through Meaning and Impact. We tested this using parallel multiple mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 4) with 10,000 bootstrap samples, controlling for all other structural empowerment dimensions. Table 2 Parallel Mediation Analysis: Effects of Role Clarity on Job Satisfaction Effect Type Pathway Effect BootSE 95% BootCI LLCI ULCI Direct Effect Role Clarity → Satisfaction .082* .032 .018 .146 Total Indirect Effect Through all mediators .026 .016 − .007 .057 Specific Indirect Effects Through Meaning .026* .011 .005 .050 Through Impact .011* .007 .001 .028 Through Autonomy .007 .009 − .014 .024 Through Efficacy − .018* .010 − .042 − .003 Total Effect Role Clarity → Satisfaction .108*** .028 .053 .163 Note. Unstandardized coefficients. Bootstrap N = 10,000. Model controls for Support, Information, Resources, Opportunity, and Rewards. *p < .05, ***p < .001. As shown in Table 2 , Role Clarity had a significant total effect on Job Satisfaction (effect = .108, *p* < .001). This effect decomposed into a significant direct effect (effect = .082, *p* = .012) and a total indirect effect through the four mediators (effect = .026, 95% CI [-.007, .057]). Examining the specific indirect pathways provided clear support for H1. As predicted, Role Clarity exerted significant positive indirect effects on Satisfaction through Meaning (effect = .026, 95% CI [.005, .050]) and through Impact (effect = .011, 95% CI [.001, .028]). The indirect effects through Autonomy (effect = .007, 95% CI [-.014, .024]) and Efficacy (effect = − .018, 95% CI [-.042, − .003]) were not statistically significant. The proportion of the total effect mediated by Meaning was 23.7%. These results support H1a and H1b, indicating that Role Clarity enhances satisfaction primarily by fostering a sense of meaningful work and perceived impact, rather than through autonomy or competence. 4.3 The Divergent Pathways of Growth Opportunities (H2) Hypothesis 2 predicted that Access to Growth Opportunities (OppAcc) would show divergent indirect effects: a positive effect through Competence (H2a) but a non-significant or negative effect through Autonomy (H2b). We tested this with an identical parallel mediation model, with OppAcc as the focal predictor. Table 3 Parallel Mediation Analysis: Effects of Growth Opportunities on Job Satisfaction Effect Type Pathway Effect BootSE 95% BootCI LLCI ULCI Direct Effect Opportunity Access → Satisfaction .043 .031 − .018 .104 Total Indirect Effect Through all mediators − .020 .016 − .052 .010 Specific Indirect Effects Through Efficacy − .022* .010 − .043 − .004 Through Autonomy − .004 .007 − .020 .008 Through Impact − .002 .004 − .010 .006 Through Meaning .007 .010 − .011 .027 Total Effect Opportunity Access → Satisfaction .023 .030 − .035 .081 Note. Unstandardized coefficients. Bootstrap N = 5,000. Model controls for Support, Information, Resources, Role Clarity, and Rewards. *p < .05. The results, presented in Table 3 , revealed a more nuanced pattern than hypothesized. The total indirect effect of OppAcc on Satisfaction was non-significant (effect = − .020, 95% CI [-.052, .010]). Importantly, and contrary to H2a , OppAcc showed a significant negative indirect effect through Efficacy (effect = − .022, 95% CI [-.043, − .004]). This indicates that increased access to growth opportunities was associated with lower satisfaction via diminished feelings of competence. Consistent with H2b, the indirect effect through Autonomy was non-significant (effect = − .004, 95% CI [-.020, .008]). The direct effect of OppAcc on Satisfaction was also non-significant (effect = .043, *p* = .166). These findings partially support H2 but reveal a counterintuitive relationship: in this context, growth opportunities may undermine the satisfaction derived from feeling competent, while showing no meaningful relationship with autonomy-based satisfaction. 4.4 Mapping Structural Antecedents of Psychological States To further understand the relationships between specific structural conditions and psychological experiences, we examined how each structural dimension predicted the four psychological mediators while controlling for all other structural factors. These regression results are consolidated in Table 4 . Table 4 Regression of Structural Empowerment Dimensions on Psychological Empowerment (Controlling for Other Structural Factors) Predictor Meaning Impact Autonomy Efficacy β (SE) β (SE) β (SE) β (SE) Constant 1.685*** (.175) 1.508*** (.237) 2.124*** (.182) 2.294*** (.169) Role Clarity .105* (.041) .188*** (.055) .185*** (.042) .152*** (.039) Support Access .122* (.054) .290*** (.074) .067 (.057) .194*** (.052) Information Access .083** (.030) .024 (.041) .005 (.032) − .087** (.029) Resource Access .093* (.039) .034 (.053) .098* (.040) .018 (.037) Opportunity Access .030 (.038) − .024 (.051) − .122** (.039) .185*** (.037) Rewards .106** (.036) .058 (.049) .115** (.037) .028 (.035) R² .256 .183 .180 .276 F 27.11*** 17.59*** 17.34*** 29.97*** Note. N = 480. Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Notably, the pattern supports the pathway specificity argued in our model. Role Clarity was a consistent positive predictor of all four psychological dimensions, with the strongest standardized coefficients for Impact (β = .188) and Meaning (β = .105). Growth Opportunities (OppAcc) showed the hypothesized divergent pattern: a strong positive association with Efficacy (β = .185, *p* < .001) but a significant negative association with Autonomy (β = − .122, *p* = .002). This regression result provides the antecedent link explaining the negative mediation found for H2: opportunities boost competence beliefs but simultaneously constrain feelings of autonomy. Rewards demonstrated the strongest direct effect on Satisfaction in the full model (β = .227, *p* < .001) and also positively predicted Meaning and Autonomy. 4.5 Testing Boundary Conditions: Moderation by Seniority and Tenure (H3) Hypothesis 3 proposed that the mediation pathways specified in H1 and H2 would remain consistent across employee groups. Moderated mediation analyses (PROCESS Model 7) tested Seniority and Organizational Tenure as moderators of the first-stage paths. Neither moderator was significant. For the Role Clarity → Meaning → Job Satisfaction pathway, the index of moderated mediation was .003 (95% CI [− .004, .009]) for Seniority and .002 (95% CI [− .005, .007]) for Tenure. Conditional indirect effects remained stable across moderator values, indicating no meaningful variation. These findings support H3 , suggesting that the psychological mechanisms linking structural empowerment to Job Satisfaction operate similarly across career stages. Discussion This research aimed to contribute to empowerment theory by addressing a critical precision problem: the widespread reliance on composite empowerment scores that obscure the specific psychological pathways through which different structural configurations influence job satisfaction. By disaggregating both structural and psychological empowerment dimensions, we developed and tested a parallel mediation model that clarifies which organizational levers activate which psychological experiences in the turbulent context of the Lebanese banking sector. The findings offer nuanced—and in some cases counterintuitive—insights that challenge overly simplified assumptions about empowerment as a uniformly positive construct. 5.1 Key Findings and Theoretical Interpretation Taken together, the findings reveal that structural empowerment components do not function homogeneously but activate distinct psychological mechanisms depending on how they interact with contextual uncertainty. In the Lebanese banking sector—characterized by prolonged polycrisis—employees appear to interpret organizational structures primarily through their capacity to either reduce or amplify uncertainty. This uncertainty lens helps explain why some structural arrangements function as stabilizing resources that enable meaning and impact, while others generate pressure, role strain, and diminished autonomy. Accordingly, the following subsections interpret the results by unpacking these pathway-specific dynamics, highlighting how different structural levers trigger qualitatively different psychological experiences rather than a generalized sense of empowerment. 5.1.1 Role Clarity as an Uncertainty-Diminishing Framework The finding that Role Clarity improves job satisfaction primarily through Meaning and Impact extends empowerment theory by connecting it to Uncertainty Management Theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Brashers, 2001). In the Lebanese banking sector—marked by economic instability, institutional fragility, and persistent organizational change—employees are embedded in a broader context of chronic uncertainty. When this environmental uncertainty is compounded by role ambiguity, employees experience heightened role stress (Kahn et al., 1964), which consumes cognitive and emotional resources that could otherwise be invested in task engagement and sensemaking (Makhlouf, 2025). From a Conservation of Resources (COR) perspective (Hobfoll, 1989 ; Hobfoll et al., 2018 ), uncertainty represents a direct threat to valued personal resources such as predictability, control, and efficacy. Role ambiguity accelerates resource depletion, triggering what COR theory terms loss spirals. Role Clarity, in contrast, operates as a resource-stabilizing mechanism. By clearly delineating expectations, responsibilities, and performance criteria, it reduces ambiguity and creates a “cognitive safe zone” within an otherwise unstable organizational environment. This stabilization preserves psychological resources and enables employees to engage in higher-order cognitive processes, including meaning-making and assessment of personal impact. Specifically, clarity allows employees to understand how their tasks contribute to broader organizational goals, thereby fostering Meaning (Hackman & Oldham, 1976 ). Simultaneously, by defining the scope and boundaries of responsibility, Role Clarity clarifies where influence is possible, strengthening perceived Impact (Spreitzer, 1995 ). These findings reposition Role Clarity not merely as a structural empowerment input but as a psychologically protective intervention that enables empowerment to emerge under conditions of uncertainty. 5.1.2 The Paradox of Growth Opportunities in Uncertain Contexts The counterintuitive finding that Access to Growth Opportunities exerts a negative indirect effect on job satisfaction through Competence further reinforces the centrality of uncertainty dynamics. While human capital theory posits that training and development should enhance competence and satisfaction (Becker, 1964 ), our findings suggest that in high-uncertainty contexts, growth opportunities may be interpreted differently by employees. Rather than functioning as resource gains, formal development initiatives may signal future demands, increased performance scrutiny, or implicit obligations to adapt continuously in an already precarious environment. From a COR perspective, such opportunities may be perceived as potential resource drains rather than resource investments, especially when employees doubt their capacity to meet escalating expectations or fear that failure will carry punitive consequences. This dynamic produces what we term an uncertainty amplification effect. Whereas Role Clarity reduces uncertainty and conserves resources, growth-oriented structures may inadvertently heighten uncertainty by introducing ambiguous future requirements and evaluative pressures. This helps explain the negative indirect effect through Competence: employees may feel that their existing skills are insufficient, undermining confidence rather than reinforcing it. The simultaneous negative association with Autonomy (β = −.122, p = .002) further supports this interpretation, suggesting that growth opportunities perceived as mandatory or tightly monitored restrict employees’ sense of control and self-determination. 5.1.3 Pathway Specificity and Theoretical Integration Taken together, these findings reveal clearly differentiated psychological pathways. Role Clarity primarily operates through Meaning and Impact—experiences that depend on environmental stability and cognitive predictability. In contrast, Growth Opportunities engage Competence and Autonomy in more complex and context-sensitive ways, shaped by employees’ perceptions of uncertainty and resource threat. This pattern directly challenges aggregated empowerment models and supports the central proposition of this study: different structural components activate distinct psychological mechanisms, and these mechanisms are theoretically predictable once uncertainty and resource dynamics are considered. The consistency of these pathways across seniority and tenure groups further indicates that they reflect stable psychological processes rather than artifacts of career stage or organizational position. 5.2 Theoretical Contributions This study offers three primary theoretical contributions. First, it challenges the dominant practice of aggregating structural empowerment dimensions into composite indices. By demonstrating that different structural levers exert distinct—and sometimes opposing—effects through specific psychological mediators, the findings show that composite scores obscure meaningful dynamics and may lead to misleading conclusions (Maynard et al., 2012 ). Second, the results provide initial empirical support for a competence–autonomy trade-off embedded within certain structural empowerment arrangements. This insight extends self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) by illustrating how organizational-level practices intended to enhance competence may inadvertently undermine autonomy, particularly under conditions of uncertainty. In doing so, the study bridges SDT with structural design, moving beyond individual motivation to examine how organizational architectures differentially satisfy basic psychological needs. Third, the study advances a pathway-oriented model of empowerment that shifts the research question from whether empowerment works to how it works. This framework provides a foundation for future research to explore additional structure–psychology linkages, such as how Access to Support may differentially shape perceived Impact or Meaning depending on leadership context. 5.3 Practical Implications For managers operating in volatile or transitional environments such as the Lebanese banking sector, the findings underscore the need to move away from generic empowerment initiatives toward more targeted, psychologically informed interventions. First, managers should prioritize Role Clarity as a low-cost, high-impact intervention during periods of uncertainty. Clarifying responsibilities, expectations, and task significance can preserve employee psychological resources, enhance Meaning, and reinforce perceptions of Impact. Second, Growth Opportunities should be carefully designed to minimize perceived pressure and maximize choice. Voluntary participation, self-directed learning paths, and development narratives centered on personal growth rather than evaluation may help prevent autonomy erosion. Third, organizations should adopt a diagnostic approach to empowerment. Rather than assuming empowerment initiatives are inherently beneficial, managers should assess their psychological consequences, including unintended effects on competence and autonomy. Finally, rewards emerged as a strong direct predictor of satisfaction. In resource-constrained environments, transparency and fairness in reward allocation may be among the most effective mechanisms for sustaining morale. 5.4 Limitations and Future Research Several limitations warrant consideration while interpreting our findings. First, the cross-sectional nature of our data, while common in organizational behavior research, imposes constraints on causal inference regarding mediation pathways (Stone-Romero & Rosopa, 2008 ). Although we grounded our model directionality in established theory (Kanter, 1993 ; Spreitzer, 1995 ) and prior longitudinal evidence (Seibert et al., 2011 ), and followed recommended statistical procedures for testing whether data are consistent with proposed mediation mechanisms (Rucker et al., 2011 ), we cannot rule out alternative temporal orderings or reciprocal effects. Future research employing longitudinal or experimental designs would help establish the causal sequencing of structural conditions, psychological states, and satisfaction outcomes (Maxwell & Cole, 2007 ). Second, our data were collected within a single industry (banking) during a period of acute national crisis in Lebanon. While this context provided a unique opportunity to examine empowerment dynamics under extreme stress—a theoretically informative condition—it may limit the generalizability of findings to more stable environments or different cultural settings. Replication in other sectors and countries, particularly those not experiencing systemic crises, would help distinguish between context-specific effects (e.g., the negative competence pathway for growth opportunities) and fundamental psychological mechanisms. Third, all data were self-reported and collected via a single survey method, raising the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). While we employed procedural remedies (ensuring anonymity, separating scale items) and the distinct mediation patterns observed suggest that common method bias alone is unlikely to explain our results, future studies would benefit from incorporating multi-source data (e.g., supervisor ratings of empowerment structures) or objective indicators (e.g., actual training hours, turnover data). Future research should build on our model in several directions. Longitudinal field studies could examine how the observed pathways evolve over time, particularly during organizational transitions from crisis to stability. Qualitative investigations are needed to unpack the subjective interpretations behind our counterintuitive finding—why growth opportunities undermined satisfaction through competence in this context. Researchers should also test organizational-level moderators, such as leadership style or psychological safety climate, that might mitigate the observed competence-autonomy tradeoff. Finally, extending the model to behavioral outcomes—such as innovation, proactive behavior, or actual turnover—would provide a more comprehensive understanding of empowerment's organizational impact. 5.5 Conclusion This study opens the “black box” between structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction by demonstrating that empowerment operates through distinct—and sometimes competing—psychological pathways rather than as a uniform construct. Role Clarity emerges as a powerful stabilizing force that enables Meaning and Impact, while Growth Opportunities reveal a more fragile and context-dependent dynamic that may undermine satisfaction under uncertainty. By moving beyond composite empowerment measures, this research provides a more precise, theoretically grounded, and practically actionable understanding of how organizational structures shape employee experience. In doing so, it advances empowerment theory and offers a clearer agenda for both research and managerial practice. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 1964) and its later amendments. Ethical review and approval were waived by the Research Ethics Committee of the Lebanese University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, as the study involved anonymous survey data, posed no potential risk to participants, and complied with national research ethics regulations. All participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the voluntary nature of participation, and their right to withdraw at any time. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to completing the survey, either in written form or through confirmed agreement via email or WhatsApp. Consent for Publication Not applicable. Availability of Data and Materials The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality agreements with participating firms and employees, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing Interests The author declares no competing interests. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Abou Elnaga, A., & Imran, A. (2014). The impact of employee empowerment on job satisfaction: Theoretical study. American Journal of Research Communication, 2 (1), 13–26. Al Kurdi, B., Alshurideh, M., & Alnaser, A. (2020). The impact of employee satisfaction on customer satisfaction: Theoretical and empirical underpinning. Management Science Letters , 10 (15), 3561-3570. Amputé d’un tiers. L’Orient-Le Jour. Retrieved from https://www.lorientlejour.com. Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32 (3), 370–398. Atchison, T. (1999). The myths of employee satisfaction. Healthcare Executive, 14 (2), 18–23. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capita. New York: N ational Bureau of Economic R esearch. Chami, S. (2023, August 12). Économie libanaise : Un « retour à la normale » Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471–482. Eylon, D., & Bamberger, P. (2000). Empowerment cognitions and empowerment acts: Recognizing the importance of gender. Group & Organization Management, 25 (4), 354–372. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 463–488. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16 (2), 250–279. Hage Boutros, P. (January,2024). Le réseau d’agences de banques libanaises Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44 (3), 513–524. Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5 , 103–128. illusoire. L’Orient-Le Jour. Retrieved from https://www.lorientlejour.com Jian, P., Dan, Y., Kang, Y., & Han, X. (2016). To empower or not to empower your followers? An implicit followership theory perspective on leader empowerment behavior. Journal of Psychological Science, 39 (5), 1197–1203. Kahn, Robert L., Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn, J. Diedrick Snoek, and Robert A. Rosenthal. 1964. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Confl ict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5), 965–990. Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation (2nd ed.). Basic Books. Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J. (2001). The impact of workplace empowerment and organizational trust on staff nurses' work satisfaction and organizational commitment. Health Care Management Review, 26 (3), 7–23. (Duplicate removed) Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance . Prentice Hall. Makhlouf, R. B. (2024). Drivers of resilience in Lebanese firms [Preprint]. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6573580/v1 Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12 (1), 23–44. Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38 (4), 1231–1281. (Duplicate removed) 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. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly , 150-163. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5 (6), 359–371. Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (5), 981–1003. Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (5), 981–1003. Singh, J. K., & Jain, M. (2013). A study of employees’ job satisfaction and its impact on their performance. Journal of Indian research , 1 (4). Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3). Sage Publications. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23 (5), 601–629. Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In C. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 54–73). Sage Publications. Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2008). The relative validity of inferences about mediation as a function of research design characteristics. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (2), 326–352. 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. Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory: A view from the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychological inquiry , 11 (4), 312-318. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal , 53 (1), 107–128. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8805683","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":586895272,"identity":"6488c778-b375-4b81-a2b8-e153224166df","order_by":0,"name":"Rabih Bedwany Makhlouf","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8538-4974","institution":"Lebanese University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rabih","middleName":"Bedwany","lastName":"Makhlouf","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-06 10:25:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8805683/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8805683/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102169439,"identity":"048bd857-7687-4275-9bcb-fc1ac8900ed4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-09 03:47:10","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":144119,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesized Parallel Mediation Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8805683/v1/2a21b36ac19b72815f3c7a96.png"},{"id":102296654,"identity":"de1c2ad7-d4e4-4bbe-ab04-7572709cafbb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 10:20:34","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1954219,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8805683/v1/619925cb-aac3-4341-aa11-4a401cd60873.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eMapping the Empowerment Pathways: A Disaggregated Analysis of Structural Levers, Psychological Mechanisms, and Job Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the complex context of contemporary organizations, employee empowerment is widely recognized as a critical driver of retention, innovation, and performance. Drawing on the foundational works of Kanter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e, 1983) and Spreitzer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), empowerment is commonly conceptualized as a dual-faceted construct. Structural empowerment\u0026mdash;encompassing sociopolitical support and access to resources, opportunities, and information\u0026mdash;enables employee action, whereas psychological empowerment\u0026mdash;reflecting experienced autonomy, meaning, competence, and impact\u0026mdash;motivates such action. A substantial body of empirical evidence confirms that empowered employees report higher levels of commitment, job satisfaction, and productivity, thereby constituting a sustainable source of competitive advantage for organizations (Maynard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Seibert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite this well-established relationship, a significant limitation characterizes much of the empowerment literature. Both structural and psychological empowerment are predominantly treated as monolithic, composite constructs (Spreitzer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Laschinger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). While this approach offers methodological parsimony, it conceals an important theoretical question: do all components of structural empowerment influence employee outcomes through the same psychological pathways? For instance, does clarifying job roles enhance employee satisfaction in the same manner as providing training and advancement opportunities? The assumption of equivalence implicit in composite modeling lacks strong theoretical justification and empirical support. Consequently, although the effectiveness of empowerment is well documented, our understanding of the precise mechanisms through which it operates remains limited.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis gap is particularly salient in highly structured and turbulent contexts such as the Lebanese banking sector. Once a pillar of economic stability, the sector has experienced severe disruptions in recent years, including substantial losses in deposit value, liquidity shortages and insolvency, currency devaluation, and large-scale workforce reductions (Chami, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Hage Boutros, 2024). In such a crisis-laden environment, organizations must rely on clear, evidence-based interventions to sustain morale and retain talent. Broad, undifferentiated empowerment initiatives risk misallocating scarce organizational resources. What managers require instead is a precise, evidence-based blueprint that identifies which specific organizational levers (e.g., role clarity versus access to growth opportunities) most effectively cultivate particular psychological experiences (e.g., meaning versus competence) that drive critical outcomes such as job satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses this need for precision by disaggregating the empowerment construct. Rather than relying on composite indices, we employ a parallel mediation framework to examine the central research question: through which distinct psychological pathways do different dimensions of structural empowerment influence job satisfaction? Focusing on two theoretically distinct structural levers\u0026mdash;Role Clarity and Access to Growth Opportunities\u0026mdash;we hypothesize that they operate through different psychological channels (Meaning and Impact versus Competence) and may involve a competence\u0026ndash;autonomy tradeoff.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy delineating these specific pathways, this research seeks to move the discussion beyond the generic prescription to \u0026ldquo;empower employees\u0026rdquo; toward a more nuanced, empirically grounded model that supports targeted managerial interventions and advances empowerment theory with greater conceptual and practical precision\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 The Need for Precision in Empowerment Literature\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployee empowerment is a well-recognized antecedent of positive organizational outcomes, including employee satisfaction, commitment, and performance (Maynard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Spreitzer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). Decades of empirical research have robustly demonstrated that empowered employees tend to be more resilient, innovative, and motivated, thereby generating a valuable source of sustainable competitive advantage for organizations (Barney, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Jian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite this substantial body of empirical evidence, a significant shortcoming persists in the way empowerment is typically examined. The dominant approach conceptualizes empowerment\u0026mdash;particularly its structural dimensions\u0026mdash;as a monolithic, aggregated construct (Seibert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Empirical studies frequently combine heterogeneous workplace conditions\u0026mdash;such as role clarity, sociopolitical support, and access to information, resources, opportunities, and rewards\u0026mdash;into a single structural empowerment index (Laschinger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). While this approach offers analytical simplicity, it raises a critical theoretical and practical question: do all structural empowerment components function in the same way and exert equivalent effects within a given organizational context?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis composite perspective implicitly assumes that distinct structural elements influence employee attitudes through identical psychological pathways. However, classical empowerment theory suggests otherwise. Kanter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) originally conceptualized empowerment as comprising multiple structural dimensions\u0026mdash;information, support, resources, and opportunities\u0026mdash;each facilitating employee effectiveness through different mechanisms. It is therefore plausible that these dimensions exert differentiated effects on employees\u0026rsquo; psychological experiences. For example, clearly defined roles may enhance a sense of meaningfulness, whereas access to strategic information may strengthen perceptions of impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing this limitation, the present study moves beyond composite indices to disaggregate structural empowerment and examine its underlying mechanisms. Specifically, it investigates the distinct psychological pathways through which selected structural features\u0026mdash;namely role clarity and access to growth opportunities\u0026mdash;affect job satisfaction. By employing a disaggregated parallel mediation design, this study aims to offer a more precise and practically relevant account of how empowerment operates within highly structured organizations operating in turbulent contexts, such as the Lebanese banking sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Disentangling Structural Empowerment: Beyond a Composite\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural empowerment, as theorized by Kanter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), is inherently multidimensional. It refers to the structural conditions of the work environment\u0026mdash;embedded in organizational policies, practices, and resource allocations\u0026mdash;that enable employees to perform their roles effectively. Kanter\u0026rsquo;s framework identifies several distinct yet interrelated dimensions, including:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSociopolitical Support\u003c/b\u003e: Access to guidance, feedback, and advocacy from supervisors, peers, and subordinates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAccess to Information\u003c/b\u003e: Knowledge of organizational goals, values, financial conditions, and the technical expertise required to carry out one\u0026rsquo;s job.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAccess to Resources\u003c/b\u003e: Availability of time, budget, materials, and equipment necessary for task execution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAccess to Opportunities\u003c/b\u003e: Availability of training, professional development, and career advancement prospects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRole Clarity\u003c/b\u003e: Clear communication of job descriptions and a well-defined understanding of job requirements, tasks, and performance expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAccess to Rewards\u003c/b\u003e: Appropriate financial and non-financial recognition for employee contributions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite this explicit multidimensionality, the majority of empirical studies operationalize structural empowerment as an aggregated or higher-order construct (Spreitzer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Laschinger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). This methodological convention, while facilitating analytical parsimony, entails a significant conceptual cost: it conflates potentially distinct underlying mechanisms. Aggregating these dimensions into a single index rests on the implicit assumption that they are functionally equivalent and substitutable in their effects across different organizational contexts and employee psychological experiences. Yet, the effectiveness of specific work contexts often depends on different structural levers\u0026mdash;for example, information-intensive versus technically intensive environments\u0026mdash;suggesting that not all dimensions operate uniformly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis assumption is questionable from both theoretical and practical perspectives. For instance, providing clear role definitions is structurally distinct from offering growth opportunities such as training and career development pathways. Growth opportunities are typically designed to enhance competence and signal future organizational investment, whereas role clarity provides immediate cognitive structure and delineates boundaries of responsibility and impact. It is therefore unlikely that these two managerial interventions influence employees\u0026rsquo; psychological experiences in the same way. One may primarily strengthen a sense of meaning, while the other may primarily enhance self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on this reasoning, the present study argues that advancing empowerment theory and practice requires a shift in focus\u0026mdash;from asking whether structural empowerment is effective to examining how specific structural components operate and through which psychological pathways they exert their influence. By decomposing structural empowerment, this research seeks to identify which organizational levers are most effective in fostering particular psychological experiences (meaning, autonomy, competence, and impact) within the Lebanese banking context. Such an approach enables more targeted and context-sensitive managerial interventions. The following section therefore examines the psychological dimensions that are likely to function as these distinct mediating pathways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 The Psychological Pathways: Autonomy, Competence, Meaning, and Impact as Distinct Mediators\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the structural perspective in empowerment research focuses on organizational conditions that enable employees to perform their work, the psychological perspective emphasizes employees\u0026rsquo; cognitive and motivational states\u0026mdash;that is, their subjective experience of being empowered (Conger \u0026amp; Kanungo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Eylon \u0026amp; Bamberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Drawing on Bandura\u0026rsquo;s (1977) self-efficacy theory, psychological empowerment was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct by Thomas and Velthouse (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) and subsequently refined and operationalized by Spreitzer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). This framework comprises four distinct cognitive dimensions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSelf-Determination (Autonomy)\u003c/b\u003e: The perception of choice and control in initiating, regulating, and executing one\u0026rsquo;s work activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCompetence (Self-Efficacy)\u003c/b\u003e: The belief in one\u0026rsquo;s capability to perform work tasks effectively and skillfully.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMeaning\u003c/b\u003e: The alignment between one\u0026rsquo;s work role and personal values, beliefs, and standards within the organizational context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eImpact\u003c/b\u003e: The perception that one can influence operational, administrative, or strategic outcomes at work.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1 From Dimensions to Differential Pathways\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, these dimensions are not merely interchangeable facets of a single psychological state; rather, they represent distinct cognitive pathways through which organizational structures may influence employee outcomes (Spreitzer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, similar to the structural empowerment literature, empirical research frequently aggregates these dimensions into a composite index of psychological empowerment (e.g., Spreitzer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang \u0026amp; Bartol, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This practice implicitly assumes that all dimensions are similarly affected by antecedent conditions and exert uniform effects on outcomes\u0026mdash;an assumption that lacks strong theoretical justification.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA more nuanced perspective suggests that specific structural conditions are likely to foster specific psychological experiences. For instance, role clarity\u0026mdash;by specifying tasks, responsibilities, and how individual roles contribute to broader organizational objectives\u0026mdash;may be particularly effective in cultivating a sense of meaning and perceived impact. In contrast, access to growth opportunities such as training initiatives may enhance employees\u0026rsquo; skills and confidence, thereby strengthening competence, but may not necessarily increase self-determination if such opportunities are perceived as mandatory, externally imposed, or controlling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis reasoning leads to the central proposition of the present study: to fully understand how empowerment operates, it is necessary to move beyond a generalized mediation model (structural empowerment \u0026rarr; overall psychological empowerment \u0026rarr; job satisfaction) toward a model of specific parallel mediation. We argue that the relationship between structural empowerment and job satisfaction is transmitted through discrete\u0026mdash;and potentially competing\u0026mdash;psychological pathways rather than through a unitary psychological experience. The following section integrates the structural and psychological perspectives to derive specific hypotheses concerning these differentiated pathways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Job Satisfaction: The Critical Attitudinal Outcome\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob satisfaction\u0026mdash;defined as a positive or pleasant emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one\u0026rsquo;s job or work experiences (Locke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;is a central pillar of organizational effectiveness. A substantial body of research links job satisfaction to higher productivity, customer satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and lower turnover intentions, rendering it a key source of competitive advantage (Griffeth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Kurdi et al., 2020). Conversely, dissatisfaction is associated with absenteeism, withdrawal, and counterproductive behaviors, imposing significant costs on organizations (Atchison, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, identifying the structural and psychological antecedents of job satisfaction remains a core concern in organizational research and practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence consistently identifies employee empowerment as a strong predictor of job satisfaction (Abou Elnaga \u0026amp; Imran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Singh \u0026amp; Jain, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). However, despite the robustness of this relationship, the psychological mechanisms explaining how and why different structural empowerment components translate into satisfaction remain insufficiently specified. Much of the literature treats empowerment as a unitary construct, leaving an important theoretical gap: it remains unclear whether distinct structural levers (e.g., role clarity versus growth opportunities) influence satisfaction through identical psychological processes or through differentiated\u0026mdash;and potentially competing\u0026mdash;cognitive pathways. This study addresses this gap by conceptualizing job satisfaction as the distal outcome in a disaggregated parallel mediation model, explicitly mapping the psychological mechanisms through which specific workplace structures generate positive affective evaluations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Toward a Precise Model of Empowerment: Integrating Structure, Psychology, and Outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe preceding discussion highlights three key premises: (1) structural empowerment is inherently multidimensional, (2) psychological empowerment comprises distinct cognitive experiences, and (3) the empowerment\u0026ndash;job satisfaction relationship is empirically robust yet mechanistically underdeveloped. Integrating these insights reveals the central theoretical opportunity of this study: to move from a generic mediation framework toward a pathway-specific model that explains which structural components activate which psychological dimensions to foster job satisfaction, particularly within the highly regulated and volatile Lebanese banking sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo operationalize this integration, the study focuses on two structurally distinct empowerment levers\u0026mdash;Role Clarity and Access to Growth Opportunities\u0026mdash;selected for their theoretical relevance and managerial salience. We propose that these levers operate through different psychological channels rather than exerting uniform effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.1 The Role Clarity Pathway: Providing a Framework for Meaning and Impact\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRole clarity reduces work-related uncertainty by delineating responsibilities, expectations, tasks, and performance boundaries, thereby minimizing ambiguity regarding what is required and how success is evaluated (Kahn et al., 1964; Rizzo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e). From an uncertainty reduction perspective, clear role information enhances predictability, reduces anxiety and cognitive strain, and allows employees to redirect attention from sensemaking toward goal-directed action (Ashford \u0026amp; Cummings, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e). Complementarily, goal-setting theory posits that clarity regarding goals and expectations strengthens motivation by clarifying the link between effort and outcomes and by directing attention toward task-relevant behaviors (Locke \u0026amp; Latham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough these processes, role clarity is expected to activate two primary psychological experiences. First, by linking individual tasks to broader organizational objectives, role clarity enhances a sense of meaning, enabling employees to perceive their work as purposeful and worthwhile (Hackman \u0026amp; Oldham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e). Second, by defining role boundaries and objectives, it clarifies the domain within which employees can exert influence, thereby strengthening perceived impact (Spreitzer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). Although role clarity may also relate to competence or autonomy, its core psychological function lies in structuring goal-relevant action and reducing uncertainty, rendering work efforts cognitively significant and consequential. Accordingly, we hypothesize that its effect on job satisfaction operates predominantly through these two pathways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH1\u003c/b\u003e: Role clarity will exert a significant positive indirect effect on job satisfaction primarily through (a) meaning and (b) impact, rather than through (c) autonomy or (d) competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.2 The Growth Opportunity Pathway: A Potential Competence\u0026ndash;Autonomy Tradeoff\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccess to growth opportunities, such as training and promotion pathways, is typically regarded as an unequivocally positive structural resource. Drawing on human capital theory, such opportunities enhance employees\u0026rsquo; skills and knowledge, thereby strengthening competence and self-efficacy (Becker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e). However, insights from self-determination theory suggest that formalized development systems may be experienced as controlling when they are perceived as mandatory, prescriptive, or contingent upon compliance (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, 2000). Under such conditions, growth initiatives may inadvertently undermine perceived autonomy. Accordingly, we propose a divergent pattern in which growth opportunities enhance competence-based satisfaction while exerting a neutral or negative effect on autonomy-based satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH2\u003c/b\u003e: Access to growth opportunities will demonstrate differential indirect effects on job satisfaction: a positive indirect effect through (a) competence, and a non-significant or negative indirect effect through (b) autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.3 Consistency of Psychological Mechanisms Across Employee Groups\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf the proposed pathways reflect fundamental psychological processes through which individuals cognitively interpret workplace structures, they should remain relatively stable across employee groups. Although factors such as tenure and seniority may influence baseline levels of empowerment or satisfaction, they are unlikely to alter the core structural\u0026ndash;psychological linkages. Testing this assumption provides evidence regarding the generalizability of the proposed model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH3\u003c/b\u003e: The mediation pathways specified in H1 and H2 will remain consistent across employee groups, showing no significant moderation by (a) seniority or (b) organizational tenure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 The Integrated Model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, this study proposes and tests a disaggregated parallel mediation model (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) in which structural empowerment influences job satisfaction through distinct\u0026mdash;and at times competing\u0026mdash;psychological pathways. By doing so, it moves beyond generic prescriptions to \u0026ldquo;empower employees\u0026rdquo; and offers a targeted framework identifying which structural interventions most effectively cultivate the specific psychological experiences that underpin job satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Data Collection and Sample\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected between June and August 2024 from employees in the Lebanese banking sector. The survey instrument included the following measures:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStructural Empowerment\u003c/b\u003e: Fourteen items adapted from the Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire (CWEQ-II; Laschinger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), assessing six dimensions: Access to Information, Access to Support, Access to Resources, Access to Opportunities, Role Clarity, and Access to Rewards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePsychological Empowerment\u003c/b\u003e: Twelve items from Spreitzer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), measuring four dimensions: Meaning, Competence, Self-Determination, and Impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eJob Satisfaction\u003c/b\u003e: Nine items adapted from Spector\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) Job Satisfaction Survey.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDemographic Variables\u003c/b\u003e: Age, gender, education level, seniority, organizational tenure, and income.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDue to restrictions on formal access to Lebanese banks, data were collected using a \u003cb\u003esnowball sampling technique\u003c/b\u003e, initiated through professional and personal networks. Participants received an anonymous Google Forms link distributed via WhatsApp. \u003cb\u003eThis approach is consistent with prior organizational research conducted in access-restricted or high-sensitivity contexts.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 486 responses were received. After screening for missing data on study variables, \u003cb\u003e480 complete responses were retained using listwise deletion\u003c/b\u003e, forming the final sample for analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eNote\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis sample description mirrors that of Paper 1 to ensure transparency and consistency, while the present study applies a distinct analytical strategy focused on disaggregated constructs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Measures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll scale items were measured using 5-point Likert scales (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). Unlike the composite-score approach used in Paper 1, the present study analyzes disaggregated dimensions to examine specific structural\u0026ndash;psychological pathways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural Empowerment Dimensions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubscale scores were computed as the mean of the relevant items:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAccess to Information\u003c/b\u003e: Mean of 2 items (organizational goals/values; financial information)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAccess to Support\u003c/b\u003e: Mean of 3 items (problem-solving advice; temporary help; supportive work climate)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAccess to Resources\u003c/b\u003e: Mean of 2 items (time availability; access to equipment/materials)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAccess to Opportunities\u003c/b\u003e: Mean of 2 items (skill development opportunities; promotion opportunities)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRole Clarity\u003c/b\u003e: Mean of 2 items (task awareness; clarity of job description)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAccess to Rewards\u003c/b\u003e: Mean of 2 items (fair rewards; recognition of contributions)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePsychological Empowerment Dimensions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMeaning\u003c/b\u003e: Mean of 3 items assessing the personal significance of work\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCompetence (Self-Efficacy)\u003c/b\u003e: Mean of 3 items assessing confidence in one\u0026rsquo;s capabilities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSelf-Determination (Autonomy)\u003c/b\u003e: Mean of 3 items assessing choice and independence at work\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eImpact\u003c/b\u003e: Mean of 2 items assessing perceived influence over organizational outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean of 9 items assessing overall satisfaction with one\u0026rsquo;s job.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll subscales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.70; see Results).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Statistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll analyses were conducted using SPSS version 28, supplemented by Hayes\u0026rsquo; PROCESS macro (version 4.2). The analytical strategy proceeded in three stages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.1 Preliminary Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and reliability analyses for all disaggregated variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson correlation analyses to examine bivariate relationships and assess potential multicollinearity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.2 Primary Analysis: Parallel Multiple Mediation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo test the hypothesized psychological pathways, \u003cb\u003ePROCESS Model 4 (parallel multiple mediation)\u003c/b\u003e was employed using 10,000 bootstrap resamples and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals. This approach was selected because it allows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimultaneous estimation and comparison of multiple indirect effects through competing psychological mediators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIsolation of the unique effect of focal structural predictors by statistically controlling for all other structural empowerment dimensions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRobust inference without reliance on normality assumptions for indirect effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo primary models were estimated:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. \u003cb\u003eModel 1 (Focal Analysis)\u003c/b\u003e: Testing the indirect effects of Role Clarity on Job Satisfaction through Meaning, Competence, Autonomy, and Impact, while controlling for the remaining structural empowerment dimensions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. \u003cb\u003eSupplementary Models\u003c/b\u003e: Examining Access to Growth Opportunities and other structural dimensions to identify potential tradeoffs across psychological pathways\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.3 Supplementary Analysis: Boundary Conditions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine the robustness of the identified mediation pathways across employee groups, \u003cb\u003emoderated mediation analyses (PROCESS Model 7)\u003c/b\u003e were conducted. Seniority and organizational tenure were entered as moderators of the structural\u0026ndash;psychological paths to test whether the mediation effects varied across career stages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.4 Analytical Transparency\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll mediation models controlled for the same set of structural empowerment dimensions to ensure comparability across analyses. Indirect effects were interpreted using unstandardized coefficients and bootstrapped confidence intervals, supplemented by proportion-mediated estimates where appropriate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Preliminary Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and intercorrelations among all study variables. All multi-item scales demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficients ranging from .81 to .85. The correlation matrix revealed significant positive bivariate relationships among the structural empowerment dimensions, psychological empowerment dimensions, and job satisfaction. Of note, Role Clarity showed the strongest correlation with overall Psychological Empowerment (*r* = .48, *p* \u0026lt; .01), while Meaning exhibited the strongest correlation with Job Satisfaction (*r* = .53, *p* \u0026lt; .01). The pattern of correlations provided preliminary support for testing mediation models while indicating no problematic multicollinearity (all VIFs\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3.0 in subsequent analyses).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Intercorrelations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"13\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Support Access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.83)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Information Access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.46**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.81)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Resource Access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.31**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.24**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.79)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Opportunity Access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.59**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.37**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.29**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.82)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Role Clarity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.51**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.24**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.35**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.35**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.85)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Rewards\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.53**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.41**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.41**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.42**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.59**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.84)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Meaning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.40**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.33**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.30**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.31**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.38**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.42**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.85)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. Impact\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.37**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.21**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.20**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.23**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.36**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.32**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.52**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.83)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9. Autonomy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.23**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.14**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.25**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.36**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.34**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.44**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.43**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.81)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10. Efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.43**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.12**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.42**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.39**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.33**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.55**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.45**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.44**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.82)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11. Job Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.48**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.31**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.22**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.33**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.46**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.53**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.53**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.40**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.33**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.33**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"13\"\u003eNote. \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;480. Values in parentheses on the diagonal are Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficients. Correlations are reported below the diagonal. p \u0026lt; .01.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Testing the Differential Pathways of Role Clarity (H1)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eproposed that Role Clarity would influence job satisfaction through specific psychological pathways, primarily through Meaning and Impact. We tested this using parallel multiple mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 4) with 10,000 bootstrap samples, controlling for all other structural empowerment dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParallel Mediation Analysis: Effects of Role Clarity on Job Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffect Type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePathway\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBootSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95% BootCI LLCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eULCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect Effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRole Clarity \u0026rarr; Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.082*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.032\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.146\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Indirect Effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough all mediators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.026\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.057\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecific Indirect Effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough Meaning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.026*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.050\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough Impact\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.011*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.028\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough Autonomy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough Efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.018*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.042\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRole Clarity \u0026rarr; Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.108***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.028\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.053\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.163\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Unstandardized coefficients. Bootstrap N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10,000. Model controls for Support, Information, Resources, Opportunity, and Rewards. *p \u0026lt; .05, ***p \u0026lt; .001.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, Role Clarity had a significant total effect on Job Satisfaction (effect = .108, *p* \u0026lt; .001). This effect decomposed into a significant direct effect (effect = .082, *p* = .012) and a total indirect effect through the four mediators (effect = .026, 95% CI [-.007, .057]). Examining the specific indirect pathways provided clear support for H1. As predicted, Role Clarity exerted significant positive indirect effects on Satisfaction through \u003cb\u003eMeaning\u003c/b\u003e (effect = .026, 95% CI [.005, .050]) and through \u003cb\u003eImpact\u003c/b\u003e (effect = .011, 95% CI [.001, .028]). The indirect effects through Autonomy (effect = .007, 95% CI [-.014, .024]) and Efficacy (effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.018, 95% CI [-.042, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.003]) were not statistically significant. The proportion of the total effect mediated by Meaning was 23.7%. These results support H1a and H1b, indicating that Role Clarity enhances satisfaction primarily by fostering a sense of meaningful work and perceived impact, rather than through autonomy or competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 The Divergent Pathways of Growth Opportunities (H2)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003epredicted that Access to Growth Opportunities (OppAcc) would show divergent indirect effects: a positive effect through Competence (H2a) but a non-significant or negative effect through Autonomy (H2b). We tested this with an identical parallel mediation model, with OppAcc as the focal predictor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParallel Mediation Analysis: Effects of Growth Opportunities on Job Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffect Type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePathway\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBootSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95% BootCI LLCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eULCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect Effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpportunity Access \u0026rarr; Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.043\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.104\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Indirect Effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough all mediators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecific Indirect Effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough Efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.022*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.043\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough Autonomy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough Impact\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough Meaning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpportunity Access \u0026rarr; Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.035\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.081\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Unstandardized coefficients. Bootstrap N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5,000. Model controls for Support, Information, Resources, Role Clarity, and Rewards. *p \u0026lt; .05.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results, presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, revealed a more nuanced pattern than hypothesized. The total indirect effect of OppAcc on Satisfaction was non-significant (effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.020, 95% CI [-.052, .010]). Importantly, and \u003cb\u003econtrary to H2a\u003c/b\u003e, OppAcc showed a significant \u003cb\u003enegative\u003c/b\u003e indirect effect through \u003cb\u003eEfficacy\u003c/b\u003e (effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.022, 95% CI [-.043, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.004]). This indicates that increased access to growth opportunities was associated with \u003cem\u003elower\u003c/em\u003e satisfaction via diminished feelings of competence. Consistent with H2b, the indirect effect through \u003cb\u003eAutonomy\u003c/b\u003e was non-significant (effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.004, 95% CI [-.020, .008]). The direct effect of OppAcc on Satisfaction was also non-significant (effect = .043, *p* = .166). These findings partially support H2 but reveal a counterintuitive relationship: in this context, growth opportunities may undermine the satisfaction derived from feeling competent, while showing no meaningful relationship with autonomy-based satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Mapping Structural Antecedents of Psychological States\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further understand the relationships between specific structural conditions and psychological experiences, we examined how each structural dimension predicted the four psychological mediators while controlling for all other structural factors. These regression results are consolidated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegression of Structural Empowerment Dimensions on Psychological Empowerment (Controlling for Other Structural Factors)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeaning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpact\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAutonomy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEfficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ (SE)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ (SE)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ (SE)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ (SE)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.685*** (.175)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.508*** (.237)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.124*** (.182)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.294*** (.169)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRole Clarity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.105* (.041)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.188*** (.055)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.185*** (.042)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.152*** (.039)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport Access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.122* (.054)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.290*** (.074)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.067 (.057)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.194*** (.052)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformation Access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.083** (.030)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.024 (.041)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.005 (.032)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.087** (.029)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResource Access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.093* (.039)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.034 (.053)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.098* (.040)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.018 (.037)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpportunity Access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.030 (.038)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.024 (.051)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.122** (.039)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.185*** (.037)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRewards\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.106** (.036)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.058 (.049)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.115** (.037)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.028 (.035)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.256\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.183\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.180\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.276\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.11***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.59***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.34***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.97***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;480. Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. *p \u0026lt; .05, **p \u0026lt; .01, ***p \u0026lt; .001.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, the pattern supports the pathway specificity argued in our model. \u003cb\u003eRole Clarity\u003c/b\u003e was a consistent positive predictor of all four psychological dimensions, with the strongest standardized coefficients for Impact (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.188) and Meaning (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.105). \u003cb\u003eGrowth Opportunities (OppAcc)\u003c/b\u003e showed the hypothesized divergent pattern: a strong positive association with Efficacy (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.185, *p* \u0026lt; .001) but a significant \u003cem\u003enegative\u003c/em\u003e association with Autonomy (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.122, *p* = .002). This regression result provides the antecedent link explaining the negative mediation found for H2: opportunities boost competence beliefs but simultaneously constrain feelings of autonomy. \u003cb\u003eRewards\u003c/b\u003e demonstrated the strongest direct effect on Satisfaction in the full model (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.227, *p* \u0026lt; .001) and also positively predicted Meaning and Autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5 Testing Boundary Conditions: Moderation by Seniority and Tenure (H3)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 3\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eproposed that the mediation pathways specified in H1 and H2 would remain consistent across employee groups. Moderated mediation analyses (PROCESS Model 7) tested Seniority and Organizational Tenure as moderators of the first-stage paths.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNeither moderator was significant. For the Role Clarity \u0026rarr; Meaning \u0026rarr; Job Satisfaction pathway, the \u003cb\u003eindex of moderated mediation\u003c/b\u003e was .003 (95% CI [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.004, .009]) for Seniority and .002 (95% CI [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.005, .007]) for Tenure. Conditional indirect effects remained stable across moderator values, indicating no meaningful variation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings support \u003cb\u003eH3\u003c/b\u003e, suggesting that the psychological mechanisms linking structural empowerment to Job Satisfaction operate similarly across career stages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research aimed to contribute to empowerment theory by addressing a critical precision problem: the widespread reliance on composite empowerment scores that obscure the specific psychological pathways through which different structural configurations influence job satisfaction. By disaggregating both structural and psychological empowerment dimensions, we developed and tested a parallel mediation model that clarifies which organizational levers activate which psychological experiences in the turbulent context of the Lebanese banking sector. The findings offer nuanced\u0026mdash;and in some cases counterintuitive\u0026mdash;insights that challenge overly simplified assumptions about empowerment as a uniformly positive construct.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Key Findings and Theoretical Interpretation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the findings reveal that structural empowerment components do not function homogeneously but activate distinct psychological mechanisms depending on how they interact with contextual uncertainty. In the Lebanese banking sector\u0026mdash;characterized by prolonged polycrisis\u0026mdash;employees appear to interpret organizational structures primarily through their capacity to either reduce or amplify uncertainty. This uncertainty lens helps explain why some structural arrangements function as stabilizing resources that enable meaning and impact, while others generate pressure, role strain, and diminished autonomy. Accordingly, the following subsections interpret the results by unpacking these pathway-specific dynamics, highlighting how different structural levers trigger qualitatively different psychological experiences rather than a generalized sense of empowerment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1.1 Role Clarity as an Uncertainty-Diminishing Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe finding that Role Clarity improves job satisfaction primarily through Meaning and Impact extends empowerment theory by connecting it to Uncertainty Management Theory (Berger \u0026amp; Calabrese, 1975; Brashers, 2001). In the Lebanese banking sector\u0026mdash;marked by economic instability, institutional fragility, and persistent organizational change\u0026mdash;employees are embedded in a broader context of chronic uncertainty. When this environmental uncertainty is compounded by role ambiguity, employees experience heightened role stress (Kahn et al., 1964), which consumes cognitive and emotional resources that could otherwise be invested in task engagement and sensemaking (Makhlouf, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a Conservation of Resources (COR) perspective (Hobfoll, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Hobfoll et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), uncertainty represents a direct threat to valued personal resources such as predictability, control, and efficacy. Role ambiguity accelerates resource depletion, triggering what COR theory terms loss spirals. Role Clarity, in contrast, operates as a resource-stabilizing mechanism. By clearly delineating expectations, responsibilities, and performance criteria, it reduces ambiguity and creates a \u0026ldquo;cognitive safe zone\u0026rdquo; within an otherwise unstable organizational environment. This stabilization preserves psychological resources and enables employees to engage in higher-order cognitive processes, including meaning-making and assessment of personal impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, clarity allows employees to understand how their tasks contribute to broader organizational goals, thereby fostering Meaning (Hackman \u0026amp; Oldham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e). Simultaneously, by defining the scope and boundaries of responsibility, Role Clarity clarifies where influence is possible, strengthening perceived Impact (Spreitzer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). These findings reposition Role Clarity not merely as a structural empowerment input but as a psychologically protective intervention that enables empowerment to emerge under conditions of uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1.2 The Paradox of Growth Opportunities in Uncertain Contexts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe counterintuitive finding that Access to Growth Opportunities exerts a negative indirect effect on job satisfaction through Competence further reinforces the centrality of uncertainty dynamics. While human capital theory posits that training and development should enhance competence and satisfaction (Becker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e), our findings suggest that in high-uncertainty contexts, growth opportunities may be interpreted differently by employees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRather than functioning as resource gains, formal development initiatives may signal future demands, increased performance scrutiny, or implicit obligations to adapt continuously in an already precarious environment. From a COR perspective, such opportunities may be perceived as potential resource drains rather than resource investments, especially when employees doubt their capacity to meet escalating expectations or fear that failure will carry punitive consequences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis dynamic produces what we term an uncertainty amplification effect. Whereas Role Clarity reduces uncertainty and conserves resources, growth-oriented structures may inadvertently heighten uncertainty by introducing ambiguous future requirements and evaluative pressures. This helps explain the negative indirect effect through Competence: employees may feel that their existing skills are insufficient, undermining confidence rather than reinforcing it. The simultaneous negative association with Autonomy (β = \u0026minus;.122, p = .002) further supports this interpretation, suggesting that growth opportunities perceived as mandatory or tightly monitored restrict employees\u0026rsquo; sense of control and self-determination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1.3 Pathway Specificity and Theoretical Integration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings reveal clearly differentiated psychological pathways. Role Clarity primarily operates through Meaning and Impact\u0026mdash;experiences that depend on environmental stability and cognitive predictability. In contrast, Growth Opportunities engage Competence and Autonomy in more complex and context-sensitive ways, shaped by employees\u0026rsquo; perceptions of uncertainty and resource threat.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis pattern directly challenges aggregated empowerment models and supports the central proposition of this study: different structural components activate distinct psychological mechanisms, and these mechanisms are theoretically predictable once uncertainty and resource dynamics are considered. The consistency of these pathways across seniority and tenure groups further indicates that they reflect stable psychological processes rather than artifacts of career stage or organizational position.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Theoretical Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study offers three primary theoretical contributions. First, it challenges the dominant practice of aggregating structural empowerment dimensions into composite indices. By demonstrating that different structural levers exert distinct\u0026mdash;and sometimes opposing\u0026mdash;effects through specific psychological mediators, the findings show that composite scores obscure meaningful dynamics and may lead to misleading conclusions (Maynard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the results provide initial empirical support for a competence\u0026ndash;autonomy trade-off embedded within certain structural empowerment arrangements. This insight extends self-determination theory (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, 2000) by illustrating how organizational-level practices intended to enhance competence may inadvertently undermine autonomy, particularly under conditions of uncertainty. In doing so, the study bridges SDT with structural design, moving beyond individual motivation to examine how organizational architectures differentially satisfy basic psychological needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the study advances a pathway-oriented model of empowerment that shifts the research question from whether empowerment works to how it works. This framework provides a foundation for future research to explore additional structure\u0026ndash;psychology linkages, such as how Access to Support may differentially shape perceived Impact or Meaning depending on leadership context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Practical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor managers operating in volatile or transitional environments such as the Lebanese banking sector, the findings underscore the need to move away from generic empowerment initiatives toward more targeted, psychologically informed interventions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, managers should prioritize Role Clarity as a low-cost, high-impact intervention during periods of uncertainty. Clarifying responsibilities, expectations, and task significance can preserve employee psychological resources, enhance Meaning, and reinforce perceptions of Impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, Growth Opportunities should be carefully designed to minimize perceived pressure and maximize choice. Voluntary participation, self-directed learning paths, and development narratives centered on personal growth rather than evaluation may help prevent autonomy erosion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, organizations should adopt a diagnostic approach to empowerment. Rather than assuming empowerment initiatives are inherently beneficial, managers should assess their psychological consequences, including unintended effects on competence and autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, rewards emerged as a strong direct predictor of satisfaction. In resource-constrained environments, transparency and fairness in reward allocation may be among the most effective mechanisms for sustaining morale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Limitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations warrant consideration while interpreting our findings. First, the cross-sectional nature of our data, while common in organizational behavior research, imposes constraints on causal inference regarding mediation pathways (Stone-Romero \u0026amp; Rosopa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Although we grounded our model directionality in established theory (Kanter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Spreitzer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) and prior longitudinal evidence (Seibert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), and followed recommended statistical procedures for testing whether data are consistent with proposed mediation mechanisms (Rucker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), we cannot rule out alternative temporal orderings or reciprocal effects. Future research employing longitudinal or experimental designs would help establish the causal sequencing of structural conditions, psychological states, and satisfaction outcomes (Maxwell \u0026amp; Cole, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, our data were collected within a single industry (banking) during a period of acute national crisis in Lebanon. While this context provided a unique opportunity to examine empowerment dynamics under extreme stress\u0026mdash;a theoretically informative condition\u0026mdash;it may limit the generalizability of findings to more stable environments or different cultural settings. Replication in other sectors and countries, particularly those not experiencing systemic crises, would help distinguish between context-specific effects (e.g., the negative competence pathway for growth opportunities) and fundamental psychological mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, all data were self-reported and collected via a single survey method, raising the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). While we employed procedural remedies (ensuring anonymity, separating scale items) and the distinct mediation patterns observed suggest that common method bias alone is unlikely to explain our results, future studies would benefit from incorporating multi-source data (e.g., supervisor ratings of empowerment structures) or objective indicators (e.g., actual training hours, turnover data).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should build on our model in several directions. Longitudinal field studies could examine how the observed pathways evolve over time, particularly during organizational transitions from crisis to stability. Qualitative investigations are needed to unpack the subjective interpretations behind our counterintuitive finding\u0026mdash;why growth opportunities undermined satisfaction through competence in this context. Researchers should also test organizational-level moderators, such as leadership style or psychological safety climate, that might mitigate the observed competence-autonomy tradeoff. Finally, extending the model to behavioral outcomes\u0026mdash;such as innovation, proactive behavior, or actual turnover\u0026mdash;would provide a more comprehensive understanding of empowerment's organizational impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.5 Conclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study opens the \u0026ldquo;black box\u0026rdquo; between structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction by demonstrating that empowerment operates through distinct\u0026mdash;and sometimes competing\u0026mdash;psychological pathways rather than as a uniform construct. Role Clarity emerges as a powerful stabilizing force that enables Meaning and Impact, while Growth Opportunities reveal a more fragile and context-dependent dynamic that may undermine satisfaction under uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy moving beyond composite empowerment measures, this research provides a more precise, theoretically grounded, and practically actionable understanding of how organizational structures shape employee experience. In doing so, it advances empowerment theory and offers a clearer agenda for both research and managerial practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 1964) and its later amendments. Ethical review and approval were waived by the Research Ethics Committee of the Lebanese University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, as the study involved anonymous survey data, posed no potential risk to participants, and complied with national research ethics regulations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the voluntary nature of participation, and their right to withdraw at any time. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to completing the survey, either in written form or through confirmed agreement via email or WhatsApp.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of Data and Materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality agreements with participating firms and employees, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbou Elnaga, A., \u0026amp; Imran, A. (2014). The impact of employee empowerment on job satisfaction: Theoretical study. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Research Communication, 2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 13\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl Kurdi, B., Alshurideh, M., \u0026amp; Alnaser, A. (2020). The impact of employee satisfaction on customer satisfaction: Theoretical and empirical underpinning. \u003cem\u003eManagement Science Letters\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(15), 3561-3570.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmput\u0026eacute; d\u0026rsquo;un tiers. L\u0026rsquo;Orient-Le Jour. Retrieved from https://www.lorientlejour.com.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAshford, S. J., \u0026amp; Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 370\u0026ndash;398.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtchison, T. (1999). The myths of employee satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eHealthcare Executive, 14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 18\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 99\u0026ndash;120.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecker, G. S. (1964). Human capita. New York: N ational Bureau of Economic R esearch.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChami, S. (2023, August 12). \u0026Eacute;conomie libanaise : Un \u0026laquo; retour \u0026agrave; la normale \u0026raquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConger, J. A., \u0026amp; Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review, 13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 471\u0026ndash;482.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEylon, D., \u0026amp; Bamberger, P. (2000). Empowerment cognitions and empowerment acts: Recognizing the importance of gender. \u003cem\u003eGroup \u0026amp; Organization Management, 25\u003c/em\u003e(4), 354\u0026ndash;372.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGriffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., \u0026amp; Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 463\u0026ndash;488.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHackman, J. R., \u0026amp; Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 250\u0026ndash;279.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHage Boutros, P. (January,2024). Le r\u0026eacute;seau d\u0026rsquo;agences de banques libanaises\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist, 44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 513\u0026ndash;524.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., \u0026amp; Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5\u003c/em\u003e, 103\u0026ndash;128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eillusoire. L\u0026rsquo;Orient-Le Jour. Retrieved from https://www.lorientlejour.com\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJian, P., Dan, Y., Kang, Y., \u0026amp; Han, X. (2016). To empower or not to empower your followers? An implicit followership theory perspective on leader empowerment behavior. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychological Science, 39\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1197\u0026ndash;1203.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKahn, Robert L., Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn, J. Diedrick Snoek, and Robert A. Rosenthal. 1964. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Confl ict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Sociology, 82\u003c/em\u003e(5), 965\u0026ndash;990.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKanter, R. M. (1993). \u003cem\u003eMen and women of the corporation\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Basic Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., \u0026amp; Shamian, J. (2001). The impact of workplace empowerment and organizational trust on staff nurses\u0026apos; work satisfaction and organizational commitment. \u003cem\u003eHealth Care Management Review, 26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 7\u0026ndash;23.\u003cbr\u003e (Duplicate removed)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLocke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of industrial and organizational psychology\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1297\u0026ndash;1349). Rand McNally.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLocke, E. A., \u0026amp; Latham, G. P. (1990). \u003cem\u003eA theory of goal setting and task performance\u003c/em\u003e. Prentice Hall.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMakhlouf, R. B. (2024). \u003cem\u003eDrivers of resilience in Lebanese firms\u003c/em\u003e [Preprint]. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6573580/v1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaxwell, S. E., \u0026amp; Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Methods, 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 23\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., \u0026amp; Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment\u0026mdash;fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 38\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1231\u0026ndash;1281.\u003cbr\u003e (Duplicate removed)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePodsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., \u0026amp; Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 88\u003c/em\u003e(5), 879\u0026ndash;903.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRizzo, J. R., House, R. J., \u0026amp; Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative science quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 150-163.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., \u0026amp; Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. \u003cem\u003eSocial and Personality Psychology Compass, 5\u003c/em\u003e(6), 359\u0026ndash;371.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeibert, S. E., Wang, G., \u0026amp; Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 96\u003c/em\u003e(5), 981\u0026ndash;1003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeibert, S. E., Wang, G., \u0026amp; Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 96\u003c/em\u003e(5), 981\u0026ndash;1003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, J. K., \u0026amp; Jain, M. (2013). A study of employees\u0026rsquo; job satisfaction and its impact on their performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Indian research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(4).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpreitzer, G. M. (1995). An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Community Psychology, 23\u003c/em\u003e(5), 601\u0026ndash;629.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In C. Cooper \u0026amp; J. Barling (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 54\u0026ndash;73). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStone-Romero, E. F., \u0026amp; Rosopa, P. J. (2008). The relative validity of inferences about mediation as a function of research design characteristics. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Research Methods, 11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 326\u0026ndash;352.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomas, K. W., \u0026amp; Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review, 15\u003c/em\u003e(4), 666\u0026ndash;681.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVallerand, R. J. (2000). Deci and Ryan\u0026apos;s self-determination theory: A view from the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. \u003cem\u003ePsychological inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 312-318.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, X., \u0026amp; Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(1), 107\u0026ndash;128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, role clarity parallel mediation, growth opportunities, competence-autonomy tradeoff","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8805683/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8805683/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eEmployee empowerment is a widely recognized driver of job satisfaction; however, much of the existing literature conceptualizes it as a monolithic construct, overlooking the specific pathways through which different organizational conditions exert their effects. This study addresses this gap by disaggregating empowerment and testing a parallel mediation model that links distinct structural factors to specific psychological experiences. Drawing on survey data from 480 employees in the Lebanese banking sector, the study examines how Role Clarity and Access to Growth Opportunities influence job satisfaction through the psychological dimensions of meaning, autonomy, impact, and self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBootstrapped parallel mediation analyses reveal a nuanced pattern of effects. Role Clarity enhances job satisfaction primarily by strengthening employees\u0026rsquo; sense of meaning and perceived impact. In contrast, Access to Growth Opportunities exhibits a significant negative indirect effect through competence and no significant indirect effect through autonomy, suggesting a potential competence\u0026ndash;autonomy tradeoff whereby formal growth structures may undermine satisfaction derived from feeling capable. These relationships remain stable across employee tenure and seniority levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study contributes to empowerment theory by advancing a pathway-focused framework that challenges the assumption that all structural empowerment components operate uniformly. From a practical standpoint, the findings indicate that managers should prioritize role clarity to foster meaningful work and carefully design growth opportunities to mitigate unintended psychological costs. Overall, the results support a shift away from generic empowerment initiatives toward more targeted and strategically designed interventions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Mapping the Empowerment Pathways: A Disaggregated Analysis of Structural Levers, Psychological Mechanisms, and Job Satisfaction","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-09 03:46:59","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8805683/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ce1e9c3a-5bc4-49cf-a7f5-c6a7b0a1ac13","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 9th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":62445934,"name":"Psychology"},{"id":62445935,"name":"Management"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-09T03:46:59+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-09 03:46:59","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8805683","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8805683","identity":"rs-8805683","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}