Empowering Leadership and Masteristic Learning

Abstract

This study examined structural relationships among empowering leadership, masteristic learning, meaningful work, and organizational affective commitment among 617 Millennial and Gen Z workers. The sequential indirect effect via masteristic learning and meaningful work was significant, while the direct effect of masteristic learning on commitment was not. This review summarizes the methods, findings, limitations, and directions for further research.

Research background

In a 2022 survey of 122,416 people across approximately 160 countries, 59% reported that they were “quiet quitting” (Gallup, 2023). Millennials and Gen Z interpreted this phenomenon as “doing no more than the work specified in the contract,” employers as “failing to do the work properly,” and older generations as “laziness among younger generations” (Richardson, 2023).

The study tested how empowering leadership affects organizational affective commitment through masteristic learning and meaningful work among Millennial and Gen Z workers.

Theoretical background

Masteristic learning (Jang et al., 2021) is one of the scales in the masterity scale family. Previous empirical studies found that masteristic learning positively mediated the relationship between the learning support environment and innovative work behavior (Lee, 2023), and between protean career attitudes and career satisfaction (Choi, 2022). No previous study had directly examined whether masteristic learning or meaningful work mediated the relationship between empowering leadership and organizational affective commitment.

To support their hypotheses, the researchers reviewed masteristic learning alongside job crafting, knowledge sharing, and informal learning.

Research model and hypotheses

Of the paths from empowering leadership to affective commitment, only the direct path from masteristic learning (H5) was not significant

The researchers formulated hypotheses for 6 direct effects (H1–H6) and 3 indirect effects.

Hypothesis	Path
H7	Empowering leadership → Masteristic learning → Organizational affective commitment
H8	Empowering leadership → Meaningful work → Organizational affective commitment
H9	Empowering leadership → Masteristic learning → Meaningful work → Organizational affective commitment

Research data and sample

An online survey conducted over approximately 2 months in April–May 2021 included 2,531 workers aged 19 or older. The researchers selected 1,252 Millennial and Gen Z workers born after 1980 for analysis. They classified responses as inattentive when the correlation coefficient between reverse-worded and positively worded items in the organizational affective commitment scale and the greater good motivations subfactor of meaningful work exceeded −0.03. Applying this criterion excluded 635 responses, leaving 617 participants in the final analysis.

Category	Distribution
Gender	Women 330 (53.5%), men 287 (46.5%)
Age	20s 248 (40.2%), 30s 277 (44.9%), early 40s 92 (14.9%)
Generation	Millennials 496 (80.4%), Gen Z 121
Education	Graduates of 4-year universities 394 (63.9%)
Employment type	Regular employees 527 (85.4%)
Organization size	100 employees or fewer 368 (59.6%)
Position	Staff level 302 (48.9%), assistant manager level 175 (28.4%)
Total tenure	Less than 5 years 323 (52.4%)

Measurement instruments

Participants answered all items except demographic questions on a 7-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree–7: strongly agree). The final questionnaire contained 62 items: 50 scale items and 12 demographic questions.

Variable	Scale source	Subfactors (number of items)	Final α
Empowering leadership	Arnold et al. (2000), adapted by Yong (2017)	Leading by example (4)·Participative decision-making (4)·Coaching (4)·Informing (4)·Showing concern (4)	.961
Masteristic learning	Jang et al. (2021)	Autonomous learning (4)·Learning through tools (4)·Persistence in learning (3)·Open learning networks (3)·Integrative learning (3)	.886
Meaningful work	Steger et al. (2012), validated by Choi and Lee (2017)	Positive meaning in work (4)·Meaning making through work (3)·Greater good motivations (2)	.920
Organizational affective commitment	Allen & Meyer (1990), adapted by the research team1Version adapted by Professor Chang’s research team under the 2021 Yonsei University Future-Leading Research Initiative.	Single factor (4)	.863

The table reports α values after item parceling by subfactor. Before parceling, the values were .982 for empowering leadership (subfactors .934–.956) and .944 for masteristic learning (subfactors .825–.889).

For meaningful work, item 1 of the greater good motivations subfactor had a factor loading of .372. The researchers removed it because doing so increased the reliability coefficients for both the overall scale (.935→.953) and greater good motivations (.728→.912). Of the 8 organizational affective commitment items, item 4 reduced reliability (.746→.846 upon removal), and items 5·6·8 had factor loadings of .409–.492, below .5. The researchers retained 4 items (1·2·3·7) measuring the desire to maintain membership, closeness to the organization, identification, and meaning.

Analytical procedure

The researchers used SPSS 29.0 and AMOS 29.0 for the following analyses.

They summarized participants’ general characteristics using frequency analysis and reported Cronbach’s α.
They examined normality using skewness and kurtosis and assessed multicollinearity using bivariate correlation analysis.
They tested convergent and discriminant validity using factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and construct reliability (CR).
They conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and tested the fit of the measurement and structural models.
They used structural equation modeling to examine relationships among variables and estimate total, direct, and indirect effects.
The researchers used phantom variables in the structural model to decompose indirect effects by path and bootstrapping (k=10,000) to test their significance.

Phantom variables do not affect model fit or the original numerical values (Bae, 2011).

Descriptive statistics and correlations

The absolute values of skewness and kurtosis for each variable did not exceed 3. Correlation coefficients ranged from .365 to .637, indicating no multicollinearity problems.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3
1. Empowering leadership	4.370	1.393	—
2. Masteristic learning	5.133	0.852	.365***	—
3. Meaningful work	4.534	1.211	.473***	.557***	—
4. Organizational affective commitment	3.835	1.390	.517***	.380***	.637***

Model fit and validity

Index	χ²(df)	χ²/df	SRMR	GFI	NFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Structural model	1170.762(164)***	2.494	.041	.949	.968	.976	.980	.049
Criterion	—	<5	<.05	>.9	>.9	>.9	>.9	<.05

Because χ² is sensitive to sample size (Hong, 2000), the researchers considered multiple fit indices. Both absolute and relative fit indices met the criteria, indicating good model fit.

In the confirmatory factor analysis, standardized coefficients ranged from .715 to .954, AVE from .615 to .833, and construct reliability from .864 to .962.

Variable	AVE	CR
Empowering leadership	.833	.962
Masteristic learning	.618	.890
Meaningful work	.794	.920
Organizational affective commitment	.615	.864

Path coefficients and hypothesis testing

Hypothesis	Path	Unstandardized	Standardized	S.E.	Result
H1	Empowering leadership → Masteristic learning	0.223	.373***	.025	Supported
H2	Empowering leadership → Meaningful work	0.263	.317***	.031	Supported
H3	Empowering leadership → Organizational affective commitment	0.295	.284***	.040	Supported
H4	Masteristic learning → Meaningful work	0.680	.488***	.057	Supported
H5	Masteristic learning → Organizational affective commitment	−0.119	−.068	.077	Rejected
H6	Meaningful work → Organizational affective commitment	0.771	.617***	.065	Supported

Effect decomposition

Path	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Total effect
Empowering leadership → Masteristic learning	.373***	—	.373***
Empowering leadership → Meaningful work	.317***	.182***	.499***
Empowering leadership → Organizational affective commitment	.284***	.282***	.566***
Masteristic learning → Meaningful work	.488***	—	.488***
Masteristic learning → Organizational affective commitment	−.068	.301***	.233
Meaningful work → Organizational affective commitment	.617***	—	.617***

Specific indirect effects

The researchers used bootstrapping (k=10,000) to estimate the magnitude and test the significance of indirect effects. They assessed statistical significance at the .05 level using BC (bias-corrected) confidence intervals.

Hypothesis	Path	Standardized	S.E.	95% CI	Result
H7	Empowering leadership → Masteristic learning → Organizational affective commitment	−.026	.031	[−.069, .010]	Rejected
H8	Empowering leadership → Meaningful work → Organizational affective commitment	.202***	.032	[.146, .269]	Supported
H9	Empowering leadership → Masteristic learning → Meaningful work → Organizational affective commitment	.117***	.022	[.079, .167]	Supported

Of the 9 hypotheses, 7 were supported. Both rejected hypotheses (H5·H7) included a direct path from masteristic learning to organizational affective commitment.

Discussion

Masteristic learning involves learning how to perform work, reflecting deeply on it, and gaining insight into the work itself. The researchers interpreted the positive effect of meaningful work on organizational affective commitment as evidence that the meaning employees assign to work strengthens their emotional connection and attachment to the organization.

The researchers suggested that combining 5 types of learning into a single latent variable for analysis might explain the nonsignificant direct effect and sole-mediator effect of masteristic learning. The overall effect of the latent variable may have reflected the combined effects of the individual types of learning.

Study limitations

The researchers identified potential measurement error from using a single questionnaire in a cross-sectional survey as a limitation. To address common method bias, they proposed collecting longitudinal data from the same participants at different time points.

Self-report surveys may reflect respondents’ subjectivity and biases. Leadership encompasses multiple dimensions of behavior, style, and ability. Measuring it once with a few items provides a limited basis for assessing empowering leadership.

Of the 617 participants, 496 were Millennials, accounting for more than 80%. Data collection (2021) and the study (2024) took place at different times, and participants were selected retrospectively.

Practical recommendations

The researchers proposed establishing policies and programs to enhance employees’ masteristic learning and building an organizational culture that reflects its value.

Employees can obtain resources for masteristic learning, including tools, networks, and records of accumulated experience, from within and outside the organization. The researchers proposed holding knowledge-sharing sessions and facilitating access to human and material resources.

To put empowering leadership into practice, the researchers recommended that leaders and employees discuss the content, scope, and methods of empowerment. They described how leaders grant authority and autonomy by leading by example, coaching, and informing. They proposed that employees become more empowered within their own roles.

Directions for further research

The researchers discussed perspectives that distinguish early and late Millennials based on shared socioeconomic events. They suggested research on other generations, including Gen X.

They proposed examining each of the 5 types of masteristic learning separately to explore its interactive relationships with empowering leadership, meaningful work, and organizational affective commitment. Further directions included qualitative studies of how Millennial and Gen Z employees experience and perceive masteristic learning and meaningful work.

The subsequent study by Choi, Lee, and Chang (2025) pursued this generational comparison, using multigroup analysis to compare generations on either side of the Millennial generational boundary.

The meta-analysis by Lee et al. (2018) reported that empowering leadership was positively related to performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and creativity. Trust in the leader and psychological empowerment were the main mediators at the individual level. The mediators examined did not include masteristic learning and meaningful work. The study by Ahearne et al. (2005) analyzed how leadership related to customer satisfaction and sales performance, including salespeople’s self-efficacy and adaptability in the analysis. The benefits of empowering behavior were more pronounced among employees with lower levels of knowledge and experience.

The study by Spreitzer (1995) conceptualized psychological empowerment as four cognitive dimensions—meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact—and examined its validity. Empowering leadership refers to the leader’s behavior, while employees’ experience of meaning is an individual cognition. The study by Steger et al. (2012) developed the WAMI to encompass positive meaning, meaning making in life through work, and contributions to the greater good. It examined its relationships with job attitudes and well-being. The direct path from masteristic learning was not significant, whereas the indirect path through meaningful work was significant. This result identifies the experience of meaning as a mediator between learning and attachment to the organization.

The model presented by Meyer and Allen (1991) distinguished three components of organizational commitment: emotional attachment, the need to remain, and the obligation to remain. The authors proposed that each component may have different antecedents and behavioral consequences. The present study measured emotional attachment, one of those three components: closeness to the organization, identification, and the desire to maintain membership.

The analysis by Maxwell and Cole (2007) examined the problems that arise when cross-sectional data are used to estimate mediation processes that unfold over time. The mediation effects in the present study were also estimated from data collected at a single time point.

References

이진희, 지성주, Chyue Kalayar Hlaing, 김연희, 장원섭. (2024). 임파워링 리더십, 장인적 학습, 일의 의미, 정서적 조직 몰입의 구조적 관계: MZ세대 근로자를 중심으로. 기업교육과인재연구, 26(1), 33–74. https://doi.org/10.46260/KSLP.26.1.2
Lee, J., Jee, S., Hlaing, C. K., Kim, Y., & Chang, W. (2024). Structural relationships among empowering leadership, masteristic learning, meaningful work, and organizational affective commitment: Focusing on Millennial and Gen Z workers in South Korea. Journal of Corporate Education and Talent Research, 26(1), 33–74. https://doi.org/10.46260/KSLP.26.1.2
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945
Lee, A., Willis, S., & Tian, A. W. (2018). Empowering leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2220
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822%2891%2990011-Z
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.2307/256865
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160