Bureaucratic control and organizational support in the public sector: effects mediated by psychological empowerment on engagement

Abstract

The study investigates how bureaucratic control and organizational support affect the civil servant’s work engagement and the mediating role of psychological empowerment. The research adopted a quantitative approach using data collected from 159 public servants of Brazilian courts of accounts, with subsequent application of exploratory factor analysis, parceling techniques, confirmatory factor analysis, and ordinary least squares regression (OLS). The results show a negative mediation of psychological empowerment in the relationship between bureaucratic control and work engagement and a partial and positive mediation between organizational support and work engagement. Thus, psychological empowerment constitutes an important mechanism through which civil servants react to characteristics of the work context, being weakened in situations of exacerbated bureaucratic control or lack of organizational support, with consequences for the level of enthusiasm and dedication. The findings are discussed in light of their theoretical and practical implications for management in the public sector.

Keywords:
bureaucratic control; red tape; organizational support; psychological empowerment; work engagement

Resumo

O presente estudo tem como objetivo investigar em que medida o controle burocrático e o suporte organizacional afetam o engajamento no trabalho de funcionários públicos e o papel mediador do empoderamento psicológico. Para alcançar esse objetivo, foi realizado um levantamento junto a 159 servidores públicos de dois tribunais de contas brasileiros, com posterior aplicação de análise fatorial exploratória, técnicas de parcelamento, análise fatorial confirmatória e regressão de mínimos quadrados ordinários (OLS). Os resultados evidenciam que há mediação total negativa entre controle burocrático e engajamento no trabalho por meio do empoderamento psicológico. O efeito do suporte organizacional no engajamento no trabalho é parcial e positivamente mediado pelo empoderamento psicológico. Assim, o empoderamento psicológico parece ser um importante mecanismo por meio do qual os funcionários públicos reagem a características do contexto de trabalho, sendo enfraquecido em situações de controle burocrático exacerbado ou de falta de suporte organizacional, com consequências para o nível de entusiasmo e dedicação. Os achados são discutidos à luz de suas implicações teóricas e práticas para a gestão no setor público.

Palavras-chave:
controle burocrático; red tape; suporte organizacional; empoderamento psicológico; engajamento no trabalho

Resumen

El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo investigar hasta qué punto el control burocrático y el apoyo organizacional afectan el compromiso laboral de los servidores públicos y el papel mediador del empoderamiento psicológico. Para lograr este objetivo, se llevó a cabo una investigación cuantitativa, basada en datos recolectados de 159 servidores públicos de dos tribunales de cuentas brasileños, con la aplicación posterior de análisis factorial exploratorio, división de variables, análisis factorial confirmatorio y regresión de mínimos cuadrados ordinarios (OLS). Los resultados muestran que existe una mediación negativa total entre el control burocrático y el compromiso laboral a través del empoderamiento psicológico. El efecto del apoyo organizacional sobre el engagement en el trabajo está parcialmente y positivamente mediado por el empoderamiento psicológico. Así, el empoderamiento psicológico constituye un mecanismo importante a través del cual los servidores públicos reaccionan a las características del contexto de trabajo, debilitándose en situaciones de control burocrático exacerbado o falta de apoyo organizacional, con consecuencias en el nivel de entusiasmo y dedicación. Los hallazgos se discuten a la luz de sus implicaciones teóricas y prácticas para la gestión en el sector público.

Palabras clave:
control burocrático; red tape; apoyo organizacional; empoderamiento psicológico; compromiso en el trabajo

1. INTRODUCTION

The work context of Brazilian public organizations involves structures that are permeated by multiple levels of hierarchy, complex organizational systems, and cultural aspects such as centralized authoritarianism and an aversion to the entrepreneurial spirit (Pires & Macêdo, 2006; Silva & Fadul, 2010). These characteristics frequently represent challenges in terms of the implementation of organizational processes such as innovation, and this can negatively affect the attitudes and performance of public servants (Cavazotte, Moreno, & Turano, 2015; Klein & Mascarenhas, 2016).

Thus, understanding how these challenges affect public servants is essential to the creation of policies and initiatives which may be able to mitigate these tendencies. This study will focus on this issue and seek to analyze the mechanisms through which bureaucratic control demoralizes public servants’ work engagement and the role of organizational support in this scenario.

Bureaucratic control is related to complex rules and the application of highly formal procedures and regulations (Bozeman, 1993). Studies in public administration suggest that aspects such as bureaucratic control (Borst, 2018) and work demands (Borst, Kruyen, & Lako, 2019) can negatively affect the engagement and work satisfaction of public servants (Kaufmann & Tummers, 2017). However, even though bureaucratic control can present problems for organizations, such as excessive formality and rules (Bozeman, 1993), its relationship with the engagement of public servants is still not entirely understood.

On the other hand, personal and organizational resources can raise public servant motivation (Battaglio & Gelgec, 2017) and positively affect their engagement (Borst et al., 2019). Organizational support is one of the mechanisms capable of creating satisfaction (Maan, Abid, Butt, Ashfaq, & Ahmed, 2020) and work engagement (Arokiasamy, 2021). However, the impact of organizational support in bureaucratic environments is also little understood.

Given this, the following questions will guide this study: are bureaucratic control and organizational support associated with work engagement within the context of Brazilian public services? How do characteristics of the work context discourage engagement in public management? Could psychological empowerment be a central connection mechanism between these contextual characteristics and work engagement?

Based on the Social Exchange (Blau, 1964) and Self-Determination Theories (Ryan & Deci, 2000), this study proposes and analyzes the concurrent effects of bureaucratic control and organizational support on work engagement, that is, the degree of vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006) demonstrated by public servants at work. This study will also investigate the mediating mechanisms exercised by psychological empowerment. Our proposed hypotheses were evaluated by a survey given to employees of Brazilian state audit courts.

The results constitute an important contribution to the literature on public management in Brazil by emphasizing the deleterious effect of bureaucratic control on the enthusiasm with which public servants perform their functions, as well as the concomitant role of organizational support as a factor that can mobilize vigor and dedication of public servants.

Incorporating the Social Exchange and Self-Determination Theories, this study, in an original manner, posits that organizational support can play a compensatory role in mitigating the effects of bureaucratic control on work engagement, or in other words, it can counterbalance the adverse effects of bureaucratic control on psychological empowerment. If, on the one hand, bureaucratic control intensifies demands on public servants, on the other, organizational support can compensate for these pressures, thus ensuring their commitment to work. This compensatory effect would occur through the sense of psychological empowerment of public servants.

Thus, this study also contributes to the literature by analyzing the role of psychological empowerment as a critical mechanism in this process, that is, in association with these two contrasting aspects of the work context. This article is the first that we know of that treats the binomial “bureaucratic control x organizational support” comprehensively in connection with psychological empowerment as an antecedent to work engagement.

Finally, this study addresses the calls by bureaucratic theoreticians such as George, Pandey, Steijn, Decramer, and Audenaert (2021), who suggest the need to identify the factors that help public servants deal with the dysfunctionality of internal bureaucracy, given that the bureaucracy imposed by the organization itself tends to be more prejudicial to organizational and individual results than external bureaucracy, and also contributes to knowledge through research beyond the German and Anglo-American axis.

This contribution is relevant not only to the understanding of how work characteristics demoralize public servants but also to guide managerial practice, as it offers insight into actions that stimulate the engagement of public servants in public management careers.

2. THEORETICAL REFERENCES

2.1. Work engagement

Work engagement is defined as a positive, lasting, and rewarding state of affective-motivational actualization related to work, which entails the distinct dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). Unlike a momentary affective state, such as experiencing an emotion, engagement refers to a more persistent affective-motivational state (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). Despite different conceptualizations of engagement, most perspectives view engaged employees as individuals with high energy and enthusiasm who identify with their work (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008).

Vigor is characterized by mental resilience or energy in work performance, as well as willpower, persistence, and willingness to make work efforts despite difficulties (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). Dedication, in turn, reflects enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, the overcoming of challenges, and a sense of meaning, and it is marked by involvement that goes beyond normal levels at the organization because it includes the affective dimension (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Finally, absorption is a state of concentration in which time passes rapidly, and the employee has difficulty disconnecting from work. Absorption involves concentrated attention without effort, clarity of thought, and intrinsic pleasure (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009).

In other words, engagement is a penetrating affective-cognitive state which transcends a momentary state and is not related to an object, event, or person in particular (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Due to the feeling of well-being, work engagement was conceived as the antithesis of burnout, or in other words, to a high level of energy at work, while low energy levels and work identification characterize burnout (Bakker et al., 2008).

Given that work engagement refers to the persistence of high energy levels, it may be expected that the resources available at work favor engagement, while restrictive requirements and demands harm it (Borst et al., 2019; Zahari & Kaliannan, 2022). Organizational support, leadership, and autonomy are positive resources that support work performance. On the other hand, excessive workloads, abusive supervision, and bureaucratic control entail negative work demands (Zahari & Kaliannan, 2022).

2.2 Bureaucratic control as a barrier to work engagement

Bozeman (1993) defined organizational bureaucracy as rules, procedures, and regulations which stay in use generating the onus of compliance but are not efficient for the functional object of the rules. To Secchi (2009), bureaucracy, in general, is characterized as formal, impersonal, and professional. It is formal in the sense that it encompasses administrative hierarchy, procedures, and formalizations. Being impersonal, in turn, prevents people in the upper levels of the hierarchy from enjoying benefits due to their positions, and professionalism requires technical abilities and knowledge. Even though public bureaucracies can be dysfunctional, they can also permit the accumulation of knowledge and the implementation of public policies (Peci, Irigaray, & Stocker, 2021).

Regulations, norms, and routines which are not in line with the public interest and generate costs and disadvantages are denominated bureaucratic control or red tape (Bozeman & Scott, 1996; George et al., 2021), which can be understood as the execution of rules, generally with a high degree of formalization and restriction, which do not serve legitimate organizational or social purposes, resulting in unnecessary procedures, delays, inefficiency, and frustration (Bozeman, 1993; Bozeman & Scott, 1996).

To DeHart-Davis and Pandey (2005), bureaucratic controls can alienate employees, like assembly lines, given that minutely calculated procedures assume automation similar to a machine, reducing discretion, distancing employees from organizational goals, and diminishing the meaning of work.

The cost of bureaucratic control regarding work engagement is based on the Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It argues that individuals constantly seek to fulfill three basic needs: autonomy, competence, and relationships. The first refers to the need to act with freedom of choice; the second is related to the need to complete tasks and overcome challenges; and the third is linked to the need for respect and constructive relationships (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

The culture of bureaucratic control is marked by high degrees of authority, limited initiative, centralized decision-making, and top to bottom communication. It also discourages work engagement to the extent that it compromises the three basic needs posited by the Self-Determination Theory.

The fundamental assumption of this study is that excessive bureaucratic control exacerbates restrictive demands on the individual, which harms work engagement (Borst et al., 2019; Zahari & Kaliannan, 2022), limiting a critical psychological process for the growth and development of self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The recent literature that investigates the relationship between red tape and employee results (Blom, Borst, & Voorn, 2021; George et al., 2021; Hendryadi, Suratna, Suryani, & Purwanto, 2019; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, Chen, & Sacramento, 2011; Steijn & Van Der Voet, 2019) offers support for the idea that excessive bureaucratic control can alienate workers, disengaging them from work. Given this, we suppose that bureaucratic control negatively affects work engagement (H1).

According to Spreitzer (1995), psychological empowerment is an intrinsic motivational construct that is actively linked to positions at work and involves a group of cognitions influenced by the work context: a sense of meaning, competence (self-efficacy), self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1996). These cognitive aspects occur internally and come from positive experiences derived from tasks at work.

Thus, the sense of meaning refers to the degree to which individuals perceive their tasks as significant. Competence, in turn, is related to knowledge and abilities in work performance. Self-determination, meanwhile, indicates the degree of freedom of choice that individuals have in performing their work. Finally, impact has to do with the perception of the importance of work to a department or an organization (Monje-Amor, Xanthopoulou, Calvo, & Vázquez, 2021; Spreitzer, 1995).

Together, these four cognitions configure a person’s work role, or in other words, instead of individual passivity, an employee who has a high degree of psychological empowerment is capable of shaping his or her work role and context (Spreitzer, 1995). Moreover, psychological empowerment encompasses personal control, active engagement, a proactive posture in life, and a critical understanding of the work environment rooted in a structure of empowering and collective social action (Zimmerman, 1995).

The perception of being in control of work brings with it countless positive effects, such as improved performance (Tripathi, Priyadarshi, P. Kumar, & S. Kumar, 2020), a feeling of organizational belonging (Newman, Schwarz, Cooper, & Sendjaya, 2017) and work engagement (Rahi, 2021). However, belief in one’s abilities and capacity to make a personal impact on the work environment can be limited by environments characterized by extreme bureaucratic control (Spreitzer, 1995; Steijn & Van Der Voet, 2019). In the public sector, which is generally composed of hierarchical and bureaucratic structures, there are various restrictions to exploration and experimentation, which are essential to psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996).

Moreover, by imposing empty rules and procedures, bureaucratic control can harm self-determination, acting as the antithesis of a climate of empowerment (Hendryadi et al., 2019). According to the literature, a high level of bureaucracy and centralization is negatively related to affective commitment (Hendryadi et al., 2019) and psychological empowerment among employees (Tsang, Du, & Teng, 2022). Given this, we suppose that bureaucratic control is negatively related to psychological empowerment (H2).

In addition, based on Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), when individuals perceive that the work they perform is relevant (has a sense of meaning), that they have the means necessary to do their work (have developed competencies), that they can promote and implement their choices (self-determination), and also believe in the influence of the results of their work in their department or organization (impact), they achieve more intensive levels of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000), favoring more vigor, dedication, absorption, and engagement (Monje-Amor et al., 2021).

In other words, by feeling competent and having the authority to determine their work through significant tasks that have an impact, public servants feel more energized to perform their work (Aggarwal, Chand, Jhamb, & Mittal, 2020; Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014). There is empirical evidence that employees who work in environments where they find greater significance and psychological security present higher levels of engagement (Bhatnagar, 2012). Therefore, psychological empowerment is positively related to work engagement (H3).

If psychological empowerment involves a belief in the meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact of one’s work (Spreitzer, 1995), as mentioned above, probably, dysfunctional bureaucracies marked by exaggerated hierarchy, short-term vision, and an obsession with rules that are meaningless to an organization will weaken the empowerment of the individuals who work there. To the extent that psychological empowerment reflects an individual’s awareness of resources and factors that can facilitate their efforts to achieve their objectives, the alienation and control that come with bureaucratic dysfunction tend to undermine this sense of empowerment, and these cognitions will weaken this individual’s work engagement (Zahari & Kaliannan, 2022).

Empirical evidence suggests that bureaucracy harms work commitment and satisfaction (Blom et al., 2021), as well as individual engagement (Borst et al., 2019; Siverbo, 2021). Based on the Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), this study proposes that these effects on engagement result in restrictions in the experience of psychological empowerment caused by an excess of bureaucratic control.

Applying useless but onerous rules or procedures can produce alienation characterized by a lack of meaning and autonomy, and impotence (Blom et al., 2021; DeHart-Davis & Pandey, 2005). By weakening psychological empowerment, or in other words, a sense of autonomy and meaning in work, bureaucratic control undermines the work engagement of public servants. Given this, we suppose that the relationship between bureaucratic control and work engagement is mediated by psychological empowerment (H3a).

2.3 Organizational support as a driver of work engagement

Organizational support, here understood as a contextual element whose motivational force acts against bureaucracy, is related to the degree of support that an employee can expect from an organization in a wide variety of situations (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Sulea et al., 2012). Thus, employees elaborate on beliefs about the extent to which an organization values them and prioritizes their well-being (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). In addition, a high degree of organizational support ensures that employees will reciprocate this support by acting effectively and dealing with challenging or stressful situations (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) in the same manner that people are committed to others in social relationships (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

The Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) provides a theoretical framework for the positive relationship between organizational support and work engagement. The theory argues that a high degree of organizational support can lead public servants to reciprocate by displaying positive behavior, such as engagement, to help the organization achieve its objectives. Therefore, the norm of reciprocity obliges those who receive favorable treatment to favor the organization in return, which constitutes a benefit for employers and employees (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Within this context, an increment in available work resources - social support, autonomy, opportunities to learn and receive feedback - can increase the level of engagement, which in turn will reduce turnover and sick days (Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2009) and improve work performance (Bakker et al., 2008). Previous studies have demonstrated that engagement depends on a favorable work climate, shared goals, and participative problem resolution (Gilson & Shalley, 2004). Finally, studies in various contexts have demonstrated that organizational support predicts work engagement (Caesens & Stinglhamber, 2014; Oubibi, Fute, Xiao, Sun, & Zhou, 2022; Saks, 2006).

Employees who are capable of perceiving that an organization values their contribution and their well-being experience a high degree of organizational support, or in other words, and they are more likely to feel included and respected, which will lead them to exhibit a high level of involvement at work (Ertürk, 2010). Sheikh (2022) has shown that organizational support is positively associated with organizational commitment. Arokiasamy (2021), meanwhile, in his study of expatriates, demonstrates that organizational support can lead to higher levels of work engagement. Finally, Oubibi et al. (2022) argue that organizational support and working conditions are antecedents of engagement. Given this, we suppose that organizational support positively relates to work engagement (H4).

To Maan et al. (2020), employees who perceive that their organizations value their contributions experience greater psychological empowerment due to developing a secure psychological environment. According to the Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), employees who receive organizational support have a greater propensity to reciprocate in the form of a high degree of psychological empowerment because since they feel supported, they come to attribute greater significance and impact to their work and feel secure in making autonomous, self-determined decisions (Ertürk, 2010), without fear of retribution or breaking norms.

By creating good working conditions and offering challenging projects, providing autonomy and responsibilities as well as other forms of social support, the organization also favors the employee’s intrinsic motivation, increasing the potential of his or her psychological empowerment (Yogalakshmi & Suganthi, 2020). Specifically, considering the four cognitive dimensions of psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995), organizational support signals workers that they are recognized and valued, stimulating the belief that their work is significant. Secondly, organizational support also favors self-determination because it can increase autonomy in determining the way in which work is performed, developing more appropriate competencies for the exercise of tasks, and maximizing their potential impact within the department and the organization. This brings us to our fifth hypothesis that organizational support is positively related to psychological empowerment (H5).

Through its impact on psychological empowerment, organizational support increases the potential for work engagement. This process occurs through gains that organizational support makes possible regarding intrinsic motivation and self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000). By stimulating an increased sense of empowerment, organizational support also improves worker autonomy, competence, and relationships, or in other words, intrinsic motivation, which gives employees a greater propensity to be engaged at work (Monje-Amor et al., 2021).

More importantly, receiving organizational support stimulates self-determination, favoring involvement and the ability to make decisions (Sulea et al., 2012; Yogalakshmi & Suganthi, 2020). When employees have an organization’s support, either in terms of compensation or the concern and attention demonstrated regarding their well-being, they respond with positive attitudes, better performance, commitment, and engagement (Maan et al., 2020; Tripathi, Srivastava, Singh, Kapoor, & Solanki, 2021). Thus, the relationship between organizational support and work engagement is mediated by psychological empowerment (H5a).

Figure 1 presents the study’s theoretical model.

Figure 1
Theoretical model

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Participants and procedures

We tested this study’s hypotheses through a survey administered to public servants in the state auditing courts of Gioias and Rondônia, with a response rate of approximately 29%. Through an electronic form sent via Qualtrics, each employee was encouraged to evaluate his or her engagement and psychological empowerment, and we also asked for an evaluation of the levels of bureaucratic control and organizational support at their institutions. The questionnaires were sent to the work emails of the participants in May 2021, and the time dedicated to answering them varied from 6 to 10 minutes.

We received 161 responses from public servants recruited through formal communication, such as institutional emails, the official communication networks of these public bodies, and the researchers’ social contacts. After removing two statistically significant outliers detected by the Mahalanobis distance, the analyzed sample consisted of 159 participants, 52.2% from Goias. In addition, 54% of the respondents were female, and the average age was 41. Most had received a specialization degree, and on average, they had 11 years of professional experience.

3.2 Measures

Originally, the scales were developed in English. To apply them to Brazil, they went through a process of translation, retranslation, and consultation by specialists. Finally, the scales were validated in Portuguese by confirmatory factor analysis.

3.2.1 Bureaucratic control

Bureaucratic control on an organizational level was measured using two of the dimensions of Hage and Aiken’s scale (1967): hierarchy of authority and rules. An example of the hierarchy of authority is when even minor issues are deferred to someone higher up for a final answer. We used a five-point Likert scale, ranging from totally disagree to totally agree. Cronbach’s Alpha (α) for this construct was 0.87.

3.2.2 Organizational support

Organizational support was measured by nine items with greater factor weights in Eisenberger et al.’s original study (1986), following the procedure adopted by Eisenberger et al. (1990, p. 52). We used a seven-point Likert scale ranging from totally disagree to totally agree, on items such as “The organization cares about my opinions” (α = 0.94).

3.2.3 Psychological empowerment

To verify the degree of psychological empowerment that these public servants felt at work, we applied the Spreitzer scale (1995). Psychological empowerment is a composite construct of four dimensions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. The first, for example, was measured by the item “The work I do is very important to me”. We employed a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from totally disagree to totally agree (α = 0.94).

3.2.4 Engagement

Engagement was measured using a Uwes-9 scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006), which consists of nine items divided among vigor, dedication, and absorption. An example is “I am enthusiastic about my job.” Finally, we applied a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from never to always (α = 0.95).

3.2.5 Marker variables

The marker variables used follow the criteria presented by Williams, Hartman, and Cavazotte (2010). Its eight items evaluate the appreciation of various aspects of everyday life using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from totally disagree to totally agree.

3.2.6 Control variables

Age, gender, and tenure were used as control variables. Age appears to be a significant predictor of work engagement (Zhang & Farndale, 2022). In addition, the length of organizational stability favors engagement (Bal, Cooman, & Mol, 2013). Finally, the masculine gender can facilitate the expression of higher levels of work engagement (Banihani, Lewis, & Syed, 2013).

4. RESULTS

We identified the presence of outliers through the Mahalanobis distance. Of the 161 observations, just two presented statistical significance (p < 0.001), and they were removed from the sample. In the remaining 159 valid observations, there was no missing data because the survey used forced answer functionality.

Before performing tests on our hypotheses, we verified the validity of the construction of the scales using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the maximum likelihood with Amos SPSS. Considering the psychometric advantages, we decided to use the parceling technique (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002; Mansur, Sobral, & Islam, 2020).

Parcels are used in multivariate approaches to psychometrics when there is latent variable analysis, and they have the advantage of optimizing the adjustment indices of the model when compared to the items (Little et al., 2002). In this manner, we grouped the items into 11 parcels for four latent variables. Specifically, considering the multidimensionality of the engagement scale identified by exploratory factor analysis, we created three representative parcels for the domain (Little et al., 2002). The psychological empowerment scale with three representative parcels for the domain resulted in good adjustment indices for the model.

Finally, the “organizational support” and “bureaucratic control” variables were parceled using the remaining item technique (Little et al., 2002). Thus, the items were selected using a factor algorithm, based on which there was a decreasing inclusion of items with higher factor loadings in favor of lower ones to mix items with distinct weights (Little et al., 2002).

The factor model, therefore, consisted of three parcels for engagement, psychological empowerment, and organizational support and two parcels for bureaucratic control, as displayed in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Confirmatory factor analysis

The results show that the scales achieved adequate adjustment indices for the model (χ2 (df) = 72.59 (38) | p < 0.001, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.873, IFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.043, RMSEA = 0.076). In addition, the results of the CFA demonstrated that all of the 11 parcels had factor scores between 0.80 and 0.97 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2018). Cronbach’s Alpha (α_c) remained above 0.70, which demonstrates the reliability and consistency of the scales (Hair et al., 2018).

As shown in Table 1, the average variances extracted (AVE) were higher than the minimum limit of 0.5, and therefore the scales present convergent validity. Moreover, all the constructs exhibited composite reliability above 0.88, higher than the minimum of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2018). For all of the variables, the square root of the AVE (in bold) was higher than the correlations with the other study variables, which suggests that the model is appropriately measured and has discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Finally, the correlations among the study’s latent variables were significant. Attention should be paid to the negative correlation between the independent variables “Bureaucracy” and “Organizational Support” (r = -0.24, p < 0.01), which suggests that the complexities that bureaucratic control entails can make intermediations in the work routines associated with social support difficult.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among the Study Variables

	AVG	SD	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age	41	10.57	-	-	-
2. Tenure	11	9.47	-	-	0.67**	-
3. Engagement	5.46	1.21	0.95	0.87	0.13	0.08	0.93
4. Psychological empowerment	5.21	0.95	0.94	0.84	0.18	0.13	0.62**	0.92
5. Organizational support	4.34	1.41	0.93	0.83	0.01	-0.08	0.54**	0.47**	0.89
6. Bureaucratic control	2.97	1.11	0.88	0.79	-0.24**	-0.28	-0.34**	-0.46**	-0.24**	0.91

• Note: Bicaudal tests. **p < 0.01. AVG: average. SD: Standard deviation. CR: Composite reliability. AVE: Average variance extracted. The diagonal values in bold are the square roots of the respective AVEs, using the criteria of Fornell and Larcker (1981). The others represent the correlations among the variables.
• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Later we applied the OLS (ordinary least square) regression using the Macro Process (Hayes, 2021). One of the characteristics of this process is linked to the possibility of inputting a single independent variable x at the software’s command prompt. This can be resolved by estimating the direct and indirect effects of all of the k independent x variables by executing the process k times, inputting an x in the model each time and the other independent x variables as covariates (Hayes, 2021, p. 154). Thus, all of the regression coefficients, as well as their direct and indirect effects, will be identical to the estimates provided by a structured equation modeling program (Hayes, 2021). An identical procedure was applied in Study 1 of Von Hippel, Issa, Ma, and Stokes (2011).

In practical terms, we followed the procedure proposed by Hayes (2021), according to which it is possible to measure direct and indirect effects when there are two or more causal agents (independent x variables) which simultaneously transmit their effects on the same result through the intermediation of a mediator or mediators.

Considering that common method variance, understood as the variance attributable to the method of measurement and not the constructs that the measurements represent, is problematic in behavioral research, we sought to mitigate and control these effects with a marker variable, as proposed by Williams et al. (2010). Marker variables are not theoretically related to the substantive variables. Given this, it is expected that their relationship to the substantive variables will be null (Williams et al., 2010).

The analysis of the assumptions revealed normality, homoskedasticity, linearity, and the independence of the residuals. Specifically, the asymmetric values were between -1 and 1, and the kurtosis values were between -2 and 2. In addition, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test had a p-value>0.05. The assumption of homoskedasticity and the independence of the residuals was confirmed because the dispersion graph of the standardized residuals (y) and the forecast standard value (x) revealed randomness. Finally, linearity was demonstrated because the Durbin-Watson statistic was equal to 1.3. Table 2 summarizes the study’s results.

In terms of Hypothesis 1, Table 2 shows that in the model without mediation (Step 1), bureaucratic control has a significant negative effect, reducing work engagement (β = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.40, -0.11], t = -3.49, p < 0.001). However, as we included the mediating variable “psychological empowerment” (Step 2), the mediation is total, given that the direct effect of bureaucratic control on work engagement, controlled by psychological empowerment, is not significant (β = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.08], t = -0.92, p > 0.05). Therefore, the first hypothesis was not supported, but the second hypothesis was supported since the results demonstrate that bureaucratic control has a significant negative effect on psychological empowerment (β = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.45, -0.23], t = -6.13, p < 0.001).

Table 2
Results of the OLS Regression for the Mediation Model

	Step 1	Step 2
Control variables	β	β
Gender	-0.08	-0.11
Age	0.02	0.01
Tenure	-0.2	-0.01
Direct effects
Marker variables > Engagement	0.27	0.08
Bureaucratic control > Engagement	-0.25***	-0.07
Organizational support > Engagement	0.40***	0.27***
Bureaucratic control > Psychological empowerment	-	-0.34***
Organizational support > Psychological empowerment	-	0.23***
Psychological empowerment > Engagement	-	0.55***
R2 Psychological empowerment	-	0.40
R2 Work engagement	0.35	0.46
f Test	28.05	33.37
Bootstrapping estimate for indirect effects		IC 95%
Indirect effect of bureaucratic control on engagement through psychological empowerment	-0.18	[-0.25, -0.09]
Indirect effect of organizational support on engagement through psychological empowerment	0.13	[0.06, 0.21]

• Note: N = 159; 5,000 bootstrapping samples; CI = Confidence interval of 95%; *** p < 0.001. Step 1: Model without mediation. Step 2: Model with mediation.
• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

As a result, in terms of Hypothesis 3, psychological empowerment had a statistically significant effect on work engagement (β = 0.55, 95% CI [0.36, 0.74], t = 5.68, p < 0.001, R² = 0.46). Especially regarding mediating effects, we found that bureaucratic control significantly indirectly affected engagement through psychological empowerment (β = -0.18, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, -0.09]). Since the confidence interval does not include zero, the mediation is, therefore, significant. Thus, Hypothesis 3 has been supported.

The total effect of the model when there is no mediator between organizational support and engagement is β = 0.40, 95% CI [0.28, 0.51], t = 6.90, p < 0.001. In the model without mediation (Step 1), organizational support can significantly increase work engagement. In this context, when we include the mediating variable “psychological empowerment” (Step 2), the indirect effect or mediation becomes partial since the direct effect of organizational support on work engagement controlled by psychological empowerment is significant (β = 0.27, 95% CI [0.16, 0.38], t = 4.72, p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 4 has been supported.

In addition, the results of the OLS regression show that the impact of organizational support on psychological empowerment was positive and significant with β = 0.23, 95% CI [0.15, 0.32], t = 5.34, p < 0.001. With this, Hypothesis 5 has also been supported. Hypothesis 5a has also been confirmed since we have demonstrated a significant indirect effect of organizational support on engagement through psychological engagement (β = 0.13, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.06, 0.21]). Since the confidence interval does not include zero, the mediation is, therefore, significant.

Finally, it was verified that the marker variables used to handle common method bias did not present statistical significance concerning the dependent variable “engagement” (β = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33], t = 0.65, p > 0.05). With this, we can affirm that this study did not present problems related to the data collection method (Williams et al., 2010).

The results of the model with mediation are displayed in Figure 3.

Figure 3
Results of the OLS Regression for the Model with Mediation

We will discuss the study’s results below.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study has examined the extent to which the concurrent effects of bureaucratic control and organizational support promote work engagement through psychological empowerment. Our objective has been to understand the impact of these contextual factors, bureaucratic control and organizational support, on public servant engagement and the role of psychological empowerment as a central mechanism in these processes. The results indicate that the effects of bureaucratic control on engagement are mediated entirely by psychological empowerment, while the same mechanism partially mediates the effects of organizational support. That is, bureaucratic control reduces engagement because it diminishes the sense of empowerment in public servants, and organizational support partially promotes engagement by favoring the sense of empowerment in these employees.

The indirect effects of bureaucratic control and organizational support on work engagement through psychological empowerment seem to act in opposite directions, with bureaucratic control reducing engagement even in the presence of psychological empowerment. In contrast, organizational support increases engagement through psychological empowerment. The negative indirect effect of bureaucratic control fully mediated by empowerment demonstrates the importance of not ignoring issues of hierarchy and centralization within organizations.

We suggest that investment in a dynamic work environment can favor the psychological empowerment of workers, while static environments do not (Blaique, Ismail, & Aldabbas, 2022). In addition, we may observe that bureaucratic control per se appears only to affect work engagement through its impact on psychological empowerment. In other words, all of the mediation found between bureaucratic control and engagement points to psychological empowerment as the fundamental mechanism that public administration has found to impede meaningless controls and tasks. Thus, even if it is not possible to eliminate bureaucratic control in these environments, acting with empowerment through organizational support can mitigate its restrictions.

In measuring organizational support, we accept that certain norms of the public sector - notably institutional mission statements; human resource policies dealing with careers and benefits; and remuneration policies - benefit public employees and are positively related to their motivation (Battaglio & Gelgec, 2017; Rodrigues, Reis, & Gonçalves, 2014), which is why organizational support is part of our model. The results confirm that psychological empowerment is a central cognitive mechanism influenced by various aspects of the work context. It is converted into positive energy and results, and it is harmed in situations with exaggerated control or a lack of organizational support (Bhatnagar, 2012).

We have also clarified that empowerment is one of the mechanisms through which an organizational environment endowed with support for the individual can achieve elevated levels of work engagement. Thus, we have identified that organizational support directly increases work engagement among public servants to the extent that it promotes their psychological empowerment, which is a profitable path to engagement in public service, despite the dysfunctionalities of bureaucracy.

Our observations demonstrate that organizational support can partly compensate for the adverse effects of bureaucratic control on psychological empowerment, producing a positive final effect on engagement. If, on the one hand, bureaucratic control inhibits autonomy and restricts the margins of action by creating excessive complexity and barriers, on the other, organizational support is a facilitating element that gives individuals the capacity for self-determination by permitting flexibilities and intermediation, which favor the realization of objectives.

Moreover, the evidence reinforces the conception that internal dysfunctional bureaucracy derived from a rigid system of rules creates motivational inefficiencies. At the same time, organizational support based on human actions, which may come from human resource policies, leadership, or colleagues at work, energizes these exact mechanisms. Thus, independent of the level of bureaucratic control, the facilitating practices of support can stimulate engagement in public service. In this manner, we have revealed, in a novel way, the role of organizational support as a compensating factor in the face of the disillusionment generated by bureaucratic control.

Regarding the theoretical discussions on work engagement (Knight, Patterson, & Dawson, 2019; Schaufeli, 2012), there are few studies about positive and negative concurrent contextual factors that can stimulate or inhibit engagement among public servants. By focusing on a mediation model with two concomitant independent variables, this study is also innovative, analyzing more robustly the impact of encouraging versus controlling environments on work engagement, as well as the mediating role that psychological empowerment plays in how individuals deal with different aspects of their environment. Work engagement for public administration employees is a primordial factor because it affects their well-being, increases their commitment and satisfaction, minimizes turnover, and favors strong performance (Borst, 2018).

Our findings are consistent with Self-Determination Theory, according to which autonomy, relationships, and competence are three basic needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which, once mobilized by empowerment, can lead to elevated levels of engagement. Less bureaucratic activities and more organizational support favor these processes among public servants. In addition, these results are supported by Social Exchange Theory, based on what is understood to be a reciprocal exchange of the benefits received from organizations and the employee’s demonstrated engagement.

5.1 Limitations and future studies

Even though our results offer important contributions regarding the effects of context on the engagement of public servants and psychological empowerment as a key mechanism, this study does have a few limitations. The data was collected based on public servant perceptions of bureaucratic control rather than objective measures such as the number of departments or the time processes take to reach completion. Secondly, due to the first limitation, the data were collected utilizing a self-assessment survey and cross-sectional data. This limitation was mitigated by using a marker variable, through which we confirmed that common method bias is not a problem in this study. Thirdly, the design of this study does not allow for the identification of causal effects among the variables, which is an observation that future experimental studies can address.

New studies can apply objective metrics to confirm the impact of the level of bureaucratic control in various public bodies in a longitudinal manner and by using data from multiple sources. In addition, future studies can investigate whether bureaucratic control and organizational support are interrelated in the public administration context.

While bureaucratic control and organizational support have been identified as contextual variables capable of affecting psychological empowerment and engagement, other aspects such as leadership, human resource practices, and organizational climate and culture need to be investigated. We, therefore, recommend that new studies analyze the moderating effects of these aspects on bureaucracy and perceived support in the public sector. Finally, future studies can investigate other mechanisms through which organizational support mobilizes vigor and dedication in public servants, such as identification and organizational justice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author Flávia Cavazotte would like to thank the National Board of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for its support in the form of Research Grant 303871/2021-0 (Productivity in Research).

APPENDIX - APPLIED SURVEY

Work engagement

At my work, I feel bursting with energy.

At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.

I am enthusiastic about my job.

My job inspires me.

When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.

I feel happy when I am working intensely.

I am proud of the work that I do.

I am immersed in my work.

I get carried away when I am working.

Bureaucratic control

There can be little action taken here until a supervisor approves a decision.

A person who wants to make his own decisions would be quickly discouraged here.

Even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final answer.

I have to ask my boss before I do almost anything.

Any decision I make has to have my boss’s approval.

The employees are constantly being checked on for rule violations.

People here feel as though they are constantly being watched to see that they obey all the rules.

Organizational support

The organization strongly considers my goals and values.

Help is available from the organization when I have a problem.

The organization really cares about my well-being.

The organization is willing to extend itself in order to help me perform my job to the best of my ability.

Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice. (Inverted)

The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work.

The organization shows very little concern for me. (Inverted)

The organization cares about my opinions.

The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.

Psychological empowerment

The work I do is very important to me.

My job activities are personally meaningful to me.

The work I do is meaningful to me.

I am confident about my ability to do my job.

I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities.

I have mastered the skills necessary for my job.

I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job.

I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work.

I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job.

My impact on what happens in my department is large.

I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department.

I have significant influence over what happens in my department.

Marker variables

I like the city where I live.

I like the schools which I attend.

I like the quality of the food I eat.

I like the quality of my breaks.

I like television programs.

I like the advertising campaigns I see in general.

I like popular music.

I like restaurant food in general.

REFERÊNCIAS

• Aggarwal, A., Chand, P. K., Jhamb, D., & Mittal, A. (2020, março). Leader-Member exchange, work engagement, and psychological withdrawal behavior: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 423. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00423
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00423
• Arokiasamy, A. R. A. (2021). The uncharted territory: Plotting the relationships between perceived organizational support, work engagement and expatriate retention in Vietnam. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 22(3), 201-225. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/10599231.2021.1943809
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10599231.2021.1943809
• Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22(3), 187-200. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649
• Bal, P. M., Cooman, R., & Mol, S. T. (2013). Dynamics of psychological contracts with work engagement and turnover intention: The influence of organizational tenure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(1), 107-122. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.626198
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.626198
• Banihani, M., Lewis, P., & Syed, J. (2013). Is work engagement gendered? Gender in Management, 28(7), 400-423. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-01-2013-0005
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-01-2013-0005
• Battaglio, R. P., & Gelgec, S. (2017). Exploring the structure and meaning of public service motivation in the Turkish public sector: a test of the mediating effects of job characteristics. Public Management Review, 19(8), 1066-1084. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1235723
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1235723
• Bhatnagar, J. (2012). Management of innovation: Role of psychological empowerment, work engagement and turnover intention in the Indian context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(5), 928-951. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.651313
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.651313
• Blaique, L., Ismail, H. N., & Aldabbas, H. (2022). Organizational learning, resilience and psychological empowerment as antecedents of work engagement during covid-19. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 72(6), 1582-1607. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2021-0197
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2021-0197
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life New York, NY: Wiley. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643
  » https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643
• Blom, R., Borst, R. T., & Voorn, B. (2021). Pathology or Inconvenience? A meta-analysis of the impact of red tape on people and organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(4), 623-650. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20924117
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20924117
• Borst, R. T. (2018). Comparing work engagement in people-changing and people-processing service providers: A mediation model with red tape, autonomy, dimensions of PSM, and performance. Public Personnel Management, 47(3), 287-313. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018770225
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018770225
• Borst, R. T., Kruyen, P. M., & Lako, C. J. (2019). Exploring the job demands-Resources model of work engagement in government: Bringing in a psychological perspective. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(3), 372-397. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17729870
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17729870
• Bozeman, B. (1993). A theory of government “red tape” . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273-303. Recuperado de https://www.jstor.org/stable/1181785
  » https://www.jstor.org/stable/1181785
• Bozeman, B., & Scott, P. (1996). Bureaucratic red tape and formalization: Untangling conceptual knots. The American Review of Public Administration, 26(1), 1-17. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409602600101
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409602600101
• Caesens, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee, 64(5), 259-267. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.08.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.08.002
• Cavazotte, F. S. C. N., Moreno, V. A. Jr., & Turano, L. M. (2015). Cultura de aprendizagem contínua, atitudes e desempenho no trabalho: uma comparação entre empresas do setor público e privado. Revista de Administração Pública, 49(6), 1555-1578. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612136534
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612136534
• DeHart-Davis, L., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133-148. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui007
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui007
• Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51
• Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
• Ertürk, A. (2010). Exploring predictors of organizational identification: Moderating role of trust on the associations between empowerment, organizational support, and identification. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(4), 409-441. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320902834149
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320902834149
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
• George, B., Pandey, S. K., Steijn, B., Decramer, A., & Audenaert, M. (2021). Red tape, organizational performance, and employee outcomes: Meta-analysis, meta-regression, and research agenda. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 638-651. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13327
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13327
• Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4), 453-470. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001
• Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quaterly, 12(1), 72-92. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.2307/2391213
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/2391213
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate data analysis Hampshire, UK: Cengage Learning Emea. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119409137.ch4
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119409137.ch4
• Hayes, A. F. (2021). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis-A regression-based approach New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Hendryadi, H, Suratna, K, Suryani, S, & Purwanto, B. (2019). Bureaucratic culture, empowering leadership, affective commitment, and knowledge sharing behavior in Indonesian government public services. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1680099. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1680099
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1680099
• Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C. H., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 624-641. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.61968124
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.61968124
• Kaufmann, W., & Tummers, L. (2017). The negative effect of red tape on procedural satisfaction. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1311-1327. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210907
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210907
• Klein, F. A., & Mascarenhas, A. O. (2016). Motivação, satisfação profissional e evasão no serviço público: o caso da carreira de especialistas em políticas públicas e gestão governamental. Revista de Administração Pública, 50(1), 17-39. Recuperado de http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612146562
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612146562
• Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2019). Work engagement interventions can be effective: A systematic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(3), 348-372. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1588887
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1588887
• Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854-1884. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554
• Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
  » https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
• Maan, A. T., Abid, G., Butt, T. H., Ashfaq, F., & Ahmed, S. (2020). Perceived organizational support and job satisfaction: A moderated mediation model of proactive personality and psychological empowerment. Future Business Journal, 6(1), 1-10. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00027-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00027-8
• Mansur, J., Sobral, F., & Islam, G. (2020). Leading with moral courage: The interplay of guilt and courage on perceived ethical leadership and group organizational citizenship behaviors. Business Ethics, 29(3), 587-601. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12270
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12270
• Monje-Amor, A., Xanthopoulou, D., Calvo, N., & Vázquez, J. P. A. (2021). Structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, and work engagement: A cross-country study. European Management Journal, 39(6), 779-789. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.01.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.01.005
• Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017). How servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 49-62. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
• Oubibi, M., Fute, A., Xiao, W., Sun, B., & Zhou, Y. (2022). Perceived organizational support and career satisfaction among Chinese teachers: The mediation effects of job crafting and work engagement during covid-19. Sustainability, 14(2), 623. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020623
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020623
• Peci, A., Irigaray, H. A. R., & Stocker, F. (2021). Administration, management, and public policies: Interfaces and dialogues with the organizational field. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 19(spe), 1-2. Recuperado de http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-395183908
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395183908
• Pires, J. C. S., & Macêdo, K. B. (2006). Cultura organizacional em organizações públicas no Brasil. Revista de Administração Pública, 40(1), 81-104. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-76122006000100005
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-76122006000100005
• Rahi, S. (2021). Investigating the role of employee psychological well-being and psychological empowerment with relation to work engagement and sustainable employability. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 38(2), 266-285. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-12-2020-0200
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-12-2020-0200
• Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
• Rodrigues, W. A., Reis, M. T., Neto, & Gonçalves, C. G., C Filho. (2014). As influências na motivação para o trabalho em ambientes com metas e recompensas: um estudo no setor público. Revista de Administração Pública, 48(1), 253-273. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122014000100011
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122014000100011
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
• Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
• Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 116-131. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701763982
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701763982
• Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Work engagement: What do we know and where do we go? Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 14(1), 3-10. Recuperado de http://www.rjap.psihologietm.ro/Download/rjap141_1.pdf
• Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
• Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
• Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893-917. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1002/job.595
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/job.595
• Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
• Sheikh, A. M. (2022). Impact of perceived organizational support on organizational commitment of banking employees: Role of work-life balance. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 17(1), 79-99. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-02-2021-0071
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-02-2021-0071
• Silva, L. P., & Fadul, E. (2010). A produção científica sobre cultura organizacional em organizações públicas no período de 1997 a 2007: um convite à reflexão. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 14(4), 651-669. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552010000400006
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552010000400006
• Siverbo, S. (2021). The impact of management controls on public managers’ well-being. Financial Accountability and Management, 39(1), 60-80. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12290
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12290
• Sousa, M., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2014). Servant leadership and engagement in a merge process under high uncertainty. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(6), 877-899. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2013-0133
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2013-0133
• Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological, empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.2307/256865
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/256865
• Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483-504. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.2307/256789
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/256789
• Steijn, B., & Van Der Voet, J. (2019). Relational job characteristics and job satisfaction of public sector employees: When prosocial motivation and red tape collide. Public Administration, 97(1), 64-80. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12352
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12352
• Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W., Dumitru, C. Z., & Sava, F. A. (2012). Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra-role behaviors. Career Development International, 17(3), 188-207. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241054
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241054
• Tripathi, D., Priyadarshi, P., Kumar, P., & Kumar, S. (2020). Does servant leadership affect work role performance via knowledge sharing and psychological empowerment? Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 51(5), 792-812. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-10-2019-0159
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-10-2019-0159
• Tripathi, P. M., Srivastava, S., Singh, L. B., Kapoor, V., & Solanki, U. (2021, março). A JD-R perspective for enhancing engagement through empowerment: A study on Indian hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, , 12-25. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.11.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.11.007
• Tsang, K. K., Du, Y., & Teng, Y. (2022). Transformational leadership, teacher burnout, and psychological empowerment: a mediation analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 50(1), e11041. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.11041
  » https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.11041
• Von Hippel, C., Issa, M., Ma, R., & Stokes, A. (2011). Stereotype threat: Antecedents and consequences for working women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 151-161. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.749
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.749
• Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: a review and comprehensive cfa marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 477-514. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110366036
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110366036
• Yogalakshmi, J. A., & Suganthi, L. (2020). Impact of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on affective commitment: Mediation role of individual career self-management. Current Psychology, 39(3), 885-899. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9799-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9799-5
• Zahari, N., & Kaliannan, M. (2022). Antecedents of work engagement in the public sector: A systematic literature review. Review of Public Personnel Administration Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221106792
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221106792
• Zhang, L., & Farndale, E. (2022). Workforce age profile effects on job resources, work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Review, 51(1), 194-209. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2020-0095
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2020-0095
• Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 581-599. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.556-562.2940
  » https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.556-562.2940

• 8
  [Translated version] Note: All quotes in English translated by this article’s translator.

Reviewers:

• 11
  André Dantas Cabral (Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro / RJ - Brazil)
• 12
  Gustavo Moreira Tavares (Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro / RJ - Brazil)

• 13
  Peer review report: the peer review report is available at this URL. https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/rap/article/view/89576/84052

Edited by

Editor-in-chief: Alketa Peci (Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro / RJ - Brazil)

Associate editor: Gabriela Spanghero Lotta (Fundação Getulio Vargas, São Paulo / SP - Brazil)

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  18 Sept 2023
• Date of issue
  Jul-Aug 2023

History

• Received
  25 Sept 2022
• Accepted
  03 May 2023