Keywords

Organizational Innovation, Physiological Empowerment, Industrial Corporations, Jordan, Saudi Arabia

Introduction

The quick and complex changes in the climate encompassing associations have covered all zones of financial, political, mechanical, social, and cultural viewpoints. Among these changes, savage rivalry, the insurgency in information technology, globalization, free-market economies, the disintegration of resources, and the development of upper hands. Since Jordan and Saudi Arabia are part of the worldwide environment, their associations are impacted and influenced by these changes. These two Arab nations are encountering diverse environmental changes, influencing their public and private organizations alike, and this requires the organizations working at these two nations to adjust and adapt to these quickened changes, to keep developing, and endure. Embracing contemporary practices, for example, empowerment and innovation where the organization perceived that empowered workers are the contrast among success and failure in the long haul (Clinton & Laurence, 2001) has become an indispensable duty of the modern organization to grow and survive.

Considering late turns of events and approaches in human resources management, HR has become a vital organizational resource and a wellspring of reasonable competitive advantage. This new point of view moves management's consideration toward establishing a fitting working atmosphere and conditions that will in general endeavor the limit of such impressive assets. Numerous contemporary associations in industrial and developed nations turn their administration rehearses toward empowerment and innovation as means for such exploitation. Empowerment is a way of thinking of giving more responsibilities and decision-making force considerably more for people at the lower levels, while innovation is the industry of the future; it comes a groundbreaking thought that makes another area of the examination, it comes the new item that provokes new interest for it, and it comes another market which drives the industry and the economy towards a more elevated level of improvement.

All in all, there are two principal patterns for engaging representatives in the workplace; communicational and inspirational boost (Alex & Shane, 2006). Communicational pattern alludes to the cycle that happens from top to bottom, and empowerment is this pattern requires sharing of power and authority between the high levels in the organizational structure and the lower levels. In this manner, empowerment practices will incorporate occupation enhancement, self-management crew, independent work teams. Then again, motivational upgrade pattern centers around the employees' attitudes and perceptions toward empowerment, which show up in the proficiency, trust in the ability to perform works, a sense of the capacity to influence at work, opportunity of decision in how to perform errands, and feeling the sense of action.

Innovation in general and organizational innovation especially assume a significant part in the life of social societies in public and private business conditions and at different levels, regardless of whether individual, monstrous or institutional. Underscoring that some accept that innovation is not, at this point an optional status as of now to lead business associations but has become an imperative condition for them to adopt with this reality and make progress (Neda Esmaeili, 2019).

Study Issue and Purposes

The subject of innovation and empowerment are considered as new administration rehearses that don't get the necessary consideration from Middle Easterner researchers and analysts, notwithstanding the way that these two subjects are reasonable for all associations in different conditions. Therefore, the current investigation endeavors to confirm the effect of precursors that help organizational innovation to accomplish perspective for workers notwithstanding reach to the state of adoption, and plan representatives to assume liability and decision-making. The motivation behind the investigation can be accomplished by addressing the accompanying inquiries:

1. What are the fundamental predecessors supporting organizational innovation at Saudi and Jordanian industrial corporations?

2. What is the degree of psychological empowerment of laborers at Saudi and Jordanian industrial corporations?

3. Is there any effect of precursors supporting organizational innovation on employees' psychological empowerment at Saudi and Jordanian industrial corporations?

4. Is there any measurably critical contrast among Saudi and Jordanian industrial corporations in the extent of providing supporting precursors of innovativeness?

5. Is there any genuinely huge distinction among Saudi and Jordanian industrial corporations in the level of psychological empowerment of their representatives?

Study Importance

As organizations face a period of fierce change, the presentation of innovation as a type of organizational change has gotten significant. This type of progress can't be happened in hazard way. Administrators need to assess their organizational policies and cycles to decide whether they are working successfully to upgrade and encourage organizational innovation, and to decide, if any improvement should be made.

The significance of this examination rises out of the absence of past research in the Middle Easterner business setting regarding the effect of some of organizational innovation's precursors on employees' psychological empowerment, which is consequently increment attention to the management at Saudi and Jordanian industrial corporations to guarantee the necessary precursors that upgrade organizational innovation and employees' psychological empowerment..

Study Hypotheses

The investigation looked to test the accompanying significant theory: There is a measurably huge effect of precursors supporting organizational innovation on employees' psychological empowerment. This speculation is partitioned by the accompanying hence theories:

1. There is a statistically critical effect of employees' participation on employees' psychological empowerment.

2. There is a statistically critical effect of training and development on employees' psychological empowerment.

3. There is a statistically critical effect of organizational culture on employees' psychological empowerment.

4. There is a statistically critical effect of motivations on employees' psychological empowerment.

5. There is a statistically critical effect of leadership patterns on psychological empowerment.

6. There is a statistically critical effect of teamwork on psychological empowerment.

Figure 1 shows the study model in term of independent and dependent variables.

Practical Definitions of the Study Variables

A- Supporting Precursors of Organizational Innovation

It is the practices utilized or adopted by management to help and invigorate employees' inventive exercises (the ability to discover new things that might be surprising in behavior or thoughts or solutions, items or services or productive ways and strategies for work created by administrations' adoption, or their support through innovative activities). Its estimation will be through the accompanying precursors:

1. Participation: It implies the way toward including representatives in the different exercises and occasions attempted by the Organization. As representatives feel themselves as a part of the organization, this gives them an awareness of responsibility toward objectives accomplishment (Onne Janssen, 2010).

2. Training and Development: Are arranged and coordinated exertion to provide the organization's HR with explicit information, and improve and build up their aptitudes and limits, and change their conduct and patterns into positive structuring.

3. Organizational Culture: A system of qualities and convictions shared and connected by individuals from the organization, such as management philosophy, values and visions, regulations, laws, and technology inside the organization (Brian, 2009).

4. Motivation: One of the promotional exercises or strategies where the executives use to push workers toward accomplishing something specific, such as development, winning, or best execution (Kathryn, 2007)

5. Leadership Pattern: A technique or self-direction by the supervisor to lead his/her subordinates, and get them to play out the task, and this pattern shifts as indicated by the administrator himself and the level of his interest in the human element, execution, and production (Victor & Malcolm Higgs, 2005).

6. Teamwork: It implies defined or incidentally coordinated group of individuals selected by their subordinates, so that they have the necessary aptitudes and capacity of tending to the problem or to finish a work or explicit task, to improve the quality of services and products produced (Yan, Sarah & Tanja, 2013).

B- Employee's Psychological Empowerment

The fundamental interior motivation that is estimated by the number of insights mirrors the perspectives of people towards their tasks in their positions. These perceptions are (Chun & Tsung, 2012)

1. Meaningfulness: A fit between the necessities of one's work job and one's convictions, values, and conducts (Carlo & Ermanno, 2006).

2. Competence: Singular attention to having the option to complete his work effectively with high aptitudes dependent on experience, abilities, and knowledge.

3. Self-Assurance: Implies the comprehension of the person that he has the opportunity to pick methods of completing his work.

4. Effect: Implies acknowledgment of the person that he affects the decisions taken and approaches set up by the organization of its work.

Literature Review

The world goes through enormous improvements in different parts of life in an eccentric way, which forces on organizations to encourage the development, as a way and technique for training. A portion of these improvements are: changes in the competitive environment and expanding ecological turns of events and severe challenges and pressures, and transparency of the world altogether of globalization and the information revolution and new worldwide changes (Mihaela, Olimpia & Mihaela, 2016).

Modern organizations perceive that the individual is the solitary administrative component that retains new ideas and thoughts that help to exploit the chances and challenges presented by new environmental conditions to accomplish competitive advantage. The congruity of competitive advantage relies upon the organization's capacity to lead the human component with modern and advanced techniques that contain, principally attempting to change the mindset of the organization towards the representatives first and second impact the psychological circumstance of workers to reach with them to the degree of accomplishing their empowerment.

Predecessors of Organizational Innovation

In the Lesan Al-Arab book for his essayist Ibn-Manthoor, the meaning of development came in term of (Al-Bada'e) which is whatever is made for the first time. Al-Bade'e is one of God's names on account of his creation and development as the first prior to anything (Ibn-Manthoor, 2008). All the Arabic word references have concurred that innovation implies the making of something and building it in an alternate manner from its unique state. Harrison and Samson (2002, p.48) character innovation as to create and apply new and creative thoughts that applied by and set up as a regular occurrence; their classification based on its relationship with the item; any new or improved items and new cycles. Innovation thought implies the possibility that stands out, and fulfills others needs innovatively. It is likewise the possibility that is relevant in a manner that permits the selection and accessibility of items and permits estimating its adequacy; it implies the idea was not consistent with the values and rules, and can be pertinent with accessible technique (Timur & Antanas, 2017).

Damanpour (1991) characterizes innovation as, “the adoption of an internally generated or purchased device, system, policy, program, process, product, or service that is new to the adopting organization” (p. 556).

Rogers (1995) characterizes innovation as "an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption, … the perceived newness of the idea for the individual determines his or her reaction to it. If the idea is new to the individual, it is an innovation" (p. 11). Subsequently, innovation is the way toward creating and actualizing a groundbreaking idea.

Organizational innovations rely upon interior factors, such as the organization’s innovative capacity, size and structure, learning direction and strategic orientation and outer factors such as network of partners, external communication and the industrial environment in which the organization is found (Charles, 2004).

As indicated by Romijn & Albaladejo’s (2002), innovation depends most importantly the knowledge and abilities brought into the organization by the entrepreneur(s) and labor force, which they acquired through earlier experience. A bunch of characteristics ought to be accessible in the innovator; the most significant are:

1- Innovators will in general be achievement oriented and lacking assets discover it pays to develop with client demand, approach potential clients early, and adjust designs quickly (Silvia, Lewin & Greve, 2005).

2- Higher general intelligence, data storage, review and analysis (Silvia, Lewin & Greve, 2005).

3- A high level of independence and self-sufficiency (Silvia, Lewin & Greve 2005).

4- Autonomy of judgment and flexibility to peer tension on conformity in thinking (Silvia, Lewin & Greve, 2005).

5- Equipped for holding numerous thoughts together in creative pressure without making a premature resolution of uncertainty and in some cases giving blend from different ideas (Silvia, Lewin & Greve 2005).

At organizational level, Amabile (1990) portrays three significant classifications as obstacles and stimulants to creativity and innovation at work: (1) factors of organizational atmosphere or corporate culture, such as perspectives towards innovation and risk taking, organizational structures, evaluation frameworks, communication channels, and prize strategies; (2) variables of management style, both at the degree of the organization or division and at the level of the individual project; and (3) assets, including resources of materials, money, individuals and time.

From the above conversation, it appears to be that innovation needs a bunch of necessities to occur, particularly for sake of people. Likewise, innovation is knowledge directed, and effective cycles to rapidly present new items and adapt new cycles are essential for a firm to sustain its competitive advantage (Thomas, 2001) It can in this way be contended that proficient techniques, frameworks, and structures for information reconciliation are significant precursors to imaginativeness (Cockburn, Henderson & Stern, 2000). There are numerous requirements for improving and supporting innovation in organizations. A portion of these requirements or predecessors are:

a. Employee's Cooperation: Employee participation and involvement in the organizational innovation drive can create new open doors for representative plans to be actualized, in this manner expanding the general representative fulfillment record inside the organization. So it becomes imperative to design out techniques that can cultivate this kind of employee involvement and participation in the organizational decision making process (Yoon & Jung, 2011). As per Lawler’s (1990. Pp. 38-40), improved, more inventive and effective work techniques and systems (less resistance to new methods may result, and the problem-solving cycle may create innovations) is the main advantage of participative administration. Kanter (1982), indicates that a participatory workplace is hypothetically more compelling at encouraging innovations than traditional administrative structures. Denison (1990) gives experimental proof that higher levels of employee participation are correlated with better organizational performance in term of innovation.

b. Training and Development: Innovation requires knowledge skills that are hard to gain purely from external enlistment. This is because of the velocity of change associated with innovation redesigning of the current labor force. Training and development cycles can be utilized to upgrade motivation and certainty to improve, as well as to develop creative thinking skills (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). The way of stimulating innovation is generally founded on building the intellectual capital within the organization, that will yield the competencies and abilities for improved performance (McDowall & Saunders, 2010). In this regard, the cycle of employees' training and development has a focal job. Notwithstanding, in evaluating the full ramifications of training and development on innovation, it appears to be that they are interlinked to one another. As indicated by Bauernschuster's et al., (2008) exact investigation, effective innovation depends on both officeholder laborers’ knowledge, based on experience, and knowledge about most recent advances, along with the skills needed to execute them. Both of these knowledge-based elements of innovation can be accomplished through ceaseless training.

c. Organizational Culture: By building up a learning society, organizations are presenting their labor force to a greater assortment of improvements, building up the motivation of people to learn new things and developing their knowledge and capabilities to work with new innovations (Witte & Muijen, 1999). Amabile (1998) referenced that innovation request that the organizational culture energizes the freest expression and the open presentation of thoughts. Despite the fact that the literature on organizational culture and innovation isn't broad, there have been some high-quality and persuasive pieces of examination by various researchers (McLean, 2005; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). These explorations demonstrate that organizational culture assume a significant part in encouraging the organizational innovation (see Amabile et al., 1996; Kanter, 1988; Tesluk et al., 1997; Martin, 2002). Tushman & O’Reilly (1997) bring up those effective organizations have the ability to assimilate innovation into the organizational culture and the management cycles and that organizational culture lies at the core of organizational innovation.

d. Motivations: Furnishing representatives with rewards for their innovation exercises is a significant issue. At some level representatives should be recognized for their endeavors and rewards can dismantle numerous structures from the financial. For instance, an acknowledgment from prompt administrators, public acknowledgment in organization bulletins or testaments of accomplishment can likewise be esteemed by workers. This sort of inborn motivation can be created by urging representatives to investigate thoughts they find specifically energizing, fortifying sensations of individual competence, and establishing a climate where individuals can unreservedly trade thoughts and investigate areas of shared interest (Kathryn, 2007). Organizations are required to get innovative not just by utilizing people who have the ability to contribute key innovations yet additionally by compensating those people i.e., by embracing performance-based motivating frameworks that energize the improvement of new items and services (Borzaga & Tortia, 2006). In this manner, representatives might be all the more ready to contribute novel ideas in the event that they hope to harvest a portion of the increases that these thoughts produce for their organizations. As indicated by (Andersson et al., 2009), profoundly talented people will in general be pulled into firms that give proper rewards to their innovate efforts; else, they will become business visionaries and financially exploit their own projects (Bartol, 2007). (Cano & Cano, 2006) address this worry by considering the effect of both compensation and promotion on the innovation performance of Spanish firms. They find that performance-based compensation and promotion for R&D representatives is positively identified with innovation.

e. Leadership Pattern: Leaders ought to comprehend and build up the standards of conduct that drive innovation forward for the entirety of the individuals that work for, with, and close to him/her. Analysts show that the greater part of the measurable change in the atmosphere for innovation in an organization is straightforwardly related to the behaviors of the leader of that organization (Victor & Malcolm, 2005). Leaders influence innovation through their utilization of "innovation empowering agents", for example, leadership frameworks, organization plan, capabilities, and networks. As motivators or architects, they utilize these innovation empowering agents to establish a suitable organizational environment or context. (Aragón, García & Cordón, 2007). In a study of 136 primary care teams, Somech (2006) found that participative leadership style was positively associated with team innovation.

f. Teamwork: The cooperation (teamwork) for innovation was placed to have an immediate, positive relationship with individual creative conduct (Onne, 2010). All the more explicitly, it was discovered that the work groups encourage innovation. The best atmosphere for inventive and creative work is by all accounts that where individuals have the occasion to become acquainted with one another and fill in as a team. Montes et al., (2005) found that teamwork attachment advances organizational innovation.

Hence, organizational settings, cycles, and frameworks can assume a huge part in cultivating or hindering innovation (Egbu, 2004) particularly when the organization represents formal knowledge incorporation and its intellectual capital as bases in its social relations (Victor & Malcolm, 2005).

This examination utilizes the previously mentioned precursors of organizational innovation as autonomous factors.

Employee Empowerment

The phrasing empowerment had its root in the Islamic religion. It was mentioned in the Holy Quran in 16 Ayahs of 12 Sura by eight different sayings which are: (those empowered, empowered you, empowered, empowered on them, whom who empowers, empowered me, empowering and empowerment) (Al-Tabari, 2001). In current development, this phrasing was established as of late, as a reaction to extremist political and social changes. Empowerment, as an organizational advancement procedure, has its roots in earlier ideas like Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y and participative management. It has been kicked around a great deal recently in business circles; it came up in 1990s as one of the new management concepts (Al Hijji, 2014).

Empowerment can be characterized as "giving greater power to lower-level representatives in an organization to deal with their work." (Pearson & Chatterjee, 1996). As indicated by Foster, Fishman & Keys (1995), empowerment is the way toward carrying an individual or a group to a place that he/she can influence events and the outcomes (Al Hijji, 2014). Besterfield, et al., (2003) sees that empowerment is an investment supply of potential and existing representatives and various experiences. Through empowerment, organization can utilization of the potentials of representatives that may show up as new innovations and inventiveness; and restore the second row of workers to supplant the first row (Mustafa, 2004). Consequently, the employee's empowerment is the idea of empowering subordinates to have the power and ability to authority on make decisions and to represent the organization to improve both individual motivation and organizational productivity (Hogan & Coote, 2014).

The aggregation of knowledge coming about because of the investigation of the numerous measurement nature of empowerment prompted the rise of a few patterns in examining this phenomenon. Contemporary administration researchers and experts have utilized two alternate perspectives to consider and get empowerment, these perspectives are: structural and psychological perspectives. Structural perspective is macro approach centers around rehearses that delegate authority and encourage the movement of power or force from higher levels of the administrative pyramid to the lowest levels. As per Conger & Kanungo (1988), the focal point of this perspective is on sharing power all through a framework, where power is conceptualized as having formal authority or power over organizational assets. Then again, psychological empowerment perspective is a micro-approach that centers around the psychological well-being of the person, which is empowering or upgrading individual efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Both perspectives assumed a significant job in the advancement hypothesis of empowerment (Chun & Tsung, 2012). In sum, structural empowerment alludes to power based on the employee's position in the organization, while psychological empowerment consists of the major individual feelings that workers have about their job in the organization (Adrian, 1998).

Psychological empowerment, which the primary focal point of this examination, worry about the psychological circumstance of the individual instead of social development or the management practices, to detect the individual sensation of control over his work. Rather than the social-structural perspective which compared empowerment with the power circulation on all levels, psychological empowerment perspective centers around employees' revamping of their work, and their beliefs about their jobs and their relationship with their organizations (Spreitzer, 2007). As per Spreitzer (1995), the psychological perspective for empowerment is contained of four constructs as follows:

1) Meaningfulness: This build of empowerment communicates the estimation of the errand objective or purpose, decided in relation to the person's own thoughts or norms; the person's characteristic thinking often about a given task (Stechmiller & Yarandi, 1992).

In this context, it can be said that meaningfulness implies that individuals energetically feel their work is important to them, and they care about the thing they are doing.

2) Competence: This second construct of empowerment alludes to how much an individual can perform task exercises dexterously when the person in question attempts (Stechmiller & Yarandi, 1992). This element of empowerment is analogous to Bandura’s (1997) thought of self-efficacy or individual authority. In this specific situation, capability implies that individuals are sure about their capacity to tackle their job competently, and they realize they can perform.

3) Self-Assurance: This third construct of empowerment alludes to the person's feeling of having a decision of starting and controlling activities and one's own work (Werff, 1985). Moreover, Liden & Tewksbury (1995) portray the level of decision in the work setting as the essence of empowerment. Essentially, this construct is like employees' interior locus of control. Individuals with a solid interior locus of control accept that events in their lives are resolved more by their own actions than by some coincidence or destiny (Koskenvuo, 1991).

4) Effect: This construct shows how much an individual can impact strategic, authoritative, or working results at work (Callan, 1991), or how much conduct is viewed as "making a difference" regarding achieving the goal of the task, that is, creating proposed impacts in one's task environment (Stechmiller & Yarandi, 1992). As a rule, this implies that individuals believe they can have impact in their work unit; others tune in to their thoughts.

Spreitzer (1997) contends that these measurements are not indicators or results of empowerment but instead include its very quintessence.

Though individual, just as group and organizational attributes, impacted sensations of empowerment, group and organizational factors represented more difference in empowerment than did the individual factors (Beverley, Graham, Bradley & Victor, 1998). Utilizing primary condition displaying, Chiang & Jang (2008) study underpins the conclusion that leadership has a positive, direct impact on trust and organizational culture, which are significant precursors related emphatically to psychological empowerment constructs. The examination likewise proposes that self-assurance in psychological empowerment significantly affects work fulfillment and is identified with organizational responsibility. The discoveries of Beomcheol and study uncover that leader-management trade has a genuinely critical positive relationship with psychological empowerment just as its measurements (attitude and influence).

Yukl & Becker (2006) sum up the encouraging conditions for compelling empowerment based on the discoveries in the examination applied on representative organizations in numerous industries that grasp standards of representative empowerment. Table 1 summarizes these conditions.

Table 1 Facilitating Conditions For Empowerment
Condition	Unfavorable	Favorable
Organizationa l Structure	Highly centralized and formal structure; minimal effort, standard item or service.	Decentralized and low formalization; tweaked item or service.
Organizationa l Culture	Reliable, efficient operations that do not allow mistakes; internal politics, criticism of new ideas; destructive internal competition; avoidance of risk; or an overemphasis on the status quo.	Adaptability, learning, and support; reasonable, useful judgment of thoughts; prize and acknowledgment; systems for growing groundbreaking thoughts; a functioning progression of thoughts; and shared vision.
Job Plan	Basic, repetitive tasks with technology dictating work process; brief customer exchanges that occur in a short timeframe span.	Complex, non-routine and challenging tasks; adaptable innovation; rehashed client associations in a proceeding with relationship.
Access to Resources	Assets are scant or non-existent	Access to fitting assets, reserves, materials, offices, and data.
Employee Prizes and Ownership	None or practically nothing	Representatives are investors or co-proprietors or in any case put resources into the association's prosperity.
Employee Attributes and	Low accomplishment inspiration; low self- assurance; and an outer locus of control direction.	Representatives with high requirement for accomplishment; high self-assurance and self-
Abilities		adequacy; and an inward locus of control direction.
Autonomy	Employees lack opportunity in deciding how work is done and lack power over their work	Employees have the opportunity in choosing what work to do and how to do it; employees have a feeling of power over work.
Mutual Trust	Low	High
Leader Determination	Defined by management.	Chosen by colleagues.
Leaders as Role Models	Leaders do not frame empowering actions.	Leaders fill in as good examples, set proper objectives, uphold the work group, esteem singular commitments, and show trust.

Source: Yukl & Becker (2006)

It is also established by Bowen & Lawler (1995) that worker empowerment is an element of organization practices that distribute power, information, knowledge, and rewards down throughout the organization. The authors show that, “the empowerment equation is: Empowerment = Power × Information × Knowledge × Rewards. A multiplication sign, rather than a plus, indicates that if any of the four components is zero, nothing ends up reallocating that ingredient, and empowerment will be zero.” (p. 215). They also indicate that empowered organization needs concentrated employees' training efforts to build up the act of empowerment. Furthermore, the teamwork is a fundamental component to improve employee's' empowerment and to get the ideal outcomes (Laschinger, 1997).

In Jordanian context, the results of Melhem's (2005) study are in coinciding with numerous other past examinations (Christine, 1996) upholding the empowerment plot and the basic points of interest of the empowerment concept. The discoveries of Melhem's (2005) study proposes that empowerment can be upgraded and created in the wake of ensuring that employees procure the essential ability and knowledge, the current and the refreshed data and the refreshed correspondence among the management and their workers are suitably set, and great prizes and motivator frameworks which repay employees for their proactively and capably are properly developed.

In Saudi context, Abu-Hetlah (2009) finds that organizational strategies significantly effect on employees' empowerment. These policies are principally identified with organizational goals and support, work relations, motivations, promotion, and performance appraisal. He additionally prescribes that Saudi organizations need to support the participation of subordinates in the performance assessment by superiors, because of its positive effect in improving employees' performance and focus on empowering employees by including them in decision-making and promote the principle of teamwork.

Empowerment has become an undeniably significant factor in foreseeing innovative conduct. The vast majority of the past examination demonstrate that there is a positive connection between psychological empowerment and innovative conduct. In their examination, Knol & Linge (2009) find that structural and psychological empowerment are genuinely critical indicators of innovative conduct. Informal power and effect are the most relevant determinants of innovative conduct, the last the most grounded. What's more, Bashabshah (2008) find that empowerment has a huge effect in advancing organizational innovation in Jordanian business context.

In outline, as per the analyst best knowledge the literature reviewed to date mirrors no immediate exploration examine the effect of the predecessors supporting organizational innovation on employees' psychological empowerment. Thus, the primary reason of this research will be to remedy the literature’s short-comings particularly in the Arab context.

Study Methodology

Study Populace and Sample

The population of this examination compose of Saudi and Jordanian industrial corporations enrolled in their stocks' exchange markets. The total number of Jordanian industrial corporations are (69), while the total number of Saudi industrial corporations are (39).

Numerous corporations reached by the scientist were chosen through convenience examining. Convenience sampling, as the most widely recognized inspecting technique in quantitative examinations, includes the choice of test individuals based on simple accessibility and openness (Yan, Sarah & Tanja, 2013).

In the wake of investigating 60 Jordanian and Saudi industrial corporations based on personal contacts, the final target corporations were chosen. The quantity of industrial corporations that partook in this investigation was twenty from Jordan and ten from Saudi Arabia. Subjects for this examination were Jordanian and Saudi representatives who: (1) were not a leader, (2) had worked at the organization for over one year, and (3) consented to finish the review.

300 review polls were disseminated, 200 for Jordanian representatives and 100 for Saudi one, and 253 were gathered. The last reaction rate was 83% (249), after 10 unusable reactions (3.3%) were recognized.

Measurement

The instruments in this examination incorporated the predecessors supporting organizational innovation (Worker investment, participation, training and development, organizational culture, motivations, leadership pattern, and teamwork) and the elements of psychological empowerment (Meaningfulness, competence self-assurance, and effect). In this investigation, the researchers built up a survey to quantify the precursors supporting organizational innovation. This survey comprises of four subscales, including representative participation (4 items), training and development (4 items), the organizational culture (4 items), motivations (4 items), and teamwork (4 items). To measure psychological empowerment, this examination utilized the instrument created and validated by Spreitzer (1995). The twelve items of Spreitzer's (1995) instrument consist of four subscales: Meaningfulness (3 items), competence (3 items), self-assurance (3 items), and effect (3 items). Lickert Focuses Fifth Rating Scale was utilized to educate the respondents to tick either 'strongly disagree' which is evaluated as 1 point, 'disagree' rated as 2 points, 'neutral' rated as 3 points, 'agree' rated as 4 points, 'strongly agree' rated as 5 focuses. Table 2 presents the data of the dependability of the two instruments in this investigation. All coefficients surpass the minimum requirement of 0.70.

Table 2 Reliability of Measurement Instruments
Constructs	Items	Cronbach's alpha coefficients (?)
Predecessors supporting organizational innovation	4	0.94
1- Employee participation		0.91
2- Training and development		0.94
3- Organizational culture		0.93
4- Motivations		0.91
5- Leadership pattern		0.90
6- Teamwork		0.88
Psychological empowerment	2	0.89
1- Meaningfulness		0.91
2- Competence		0.87
3- Self-assurance		0.93
4- Effect		0.88

Respondent's Profile (Segment Data)

The instrument for this study incorporated additional items to measure four-segment factors to portray the sample, including age, education, hierarchical position, and tenure, solely for the purpose of describing the respondents. As shown in Table 3, most respondents were less than 40 years old (66.6%) and in a non-managerial position (49%). In terms of educational level, 44.6% of the respondents had a bachelor degree. Responses from the (5-15 years) experience classification shaped practically 49%.

Table 3 Segment Data
Variables	Categories	Total		Jordanian (N=163)		Saudi (N=86)
		Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Age	Less than 29 years	92	36.9	63	25.3	29	11.6
	30-39 years	74	29.7	53	21.3	21	8.4
	40-49 years	55	22.1	32	12.9	23	9.2
	More than 50 years	28	11.3	15	6.1	13	5.2
Education	High school or less	43	17.3	16	6.4	27	10.9
	Two years college	80	32.1	60	24.1	20	8
	Bachelor	111	44.6	77	30.9	34	13.7
	Higher studies	15	6	10	4	5	2
Position	(Deputy) Senior Manager	19	7.6	12	4.8	7	2.8
	Manager/Assistant	40	16.1	27	10.9	13	5.2
	Manager	68	27.3	52	20.9	16	6.4
	Non-management employee	122	49	72	28.9	50	20.1
Tenure	Less than 5 years	68	27.3	43	17.3	25	10
	5-15 years	121	48.6	82	32.9	39	15.7
	More than 15 years	60	24.1	38	15.3	22	8.8

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Predecessors of Organizational Innovation

Results of surveying the independent variables of the research by statistical universe average test are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics For Research Independent Variables
Variable	Means	Standard Deviation	Significant level	Variable Status*
Predecessors supporting organizational innovation	3.50	0.503	<0.001	Good
Employee participation	3.42	0.541	0.032	Good
Training and development	3.83	0.835	<0.001	Good
Organizational culture	3.07	0.669	<0.001	Medium
Motivations	3.63	0.741	<0.001	Good
Leadership pattern	4.01	0.708	0.006	Good
Teamwork	3.01	0.818	0.009	Medium

*H0: μ=3

As can be seen from Table 4, industrial corporations surveyed in the two countries are in a befitting state regarding the predecessors supporting their innovativeness. On the other hand, organizational culture and teamwork as supporting variables are in a medial state. According to this result, leadership pattern and training and development, and motivations are the main predecessors that supporting organizational innovation in then surveyed corporations.

Psychological Empowerment Constructs

Results of surveying the dependent variables of the research by descriptive statistical universe average test are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Descriptive Statistics For Research Dependent Variables
Variable	Means	Standard Deviation	Significant Level	Variable Status*
Psychological Empowerment	3.94	0.613	<0.001	Good
Meaningfulness	3.87	0.606	<0.001	Good
Competence	4.12	0.551	<0.001	Good
Self-assurance	4	0.673	<0.001	Good
Effect	3.76	0.549	<0.001	Good

*H0: µ=3

As can be seen from Table 5, psychological empowerment and all of it constructs are in a befitting state. This result means that survey corporation’s management are aware about the importance of these constructs and their role in enhancing employees' performance.

Testing of Hypotheses

To test the research main hypothesis, simple regression analysis was carried out. Table 6 displays the results of this analysis.

Table 6
Simple regression analysis (psychological empowerment). **: p<0.01
Model	Value	t	Sig (2-tailed)
Constant	0.879	1.083	0.072
Standardized Coefficient (?)	0.759	18.302	0.002**
R	0.759
R2	0.576
F-Value	334.98
Sig (2-tailed)	0.000**
Durbin Watson	1.42

Independent variable: Predecessors supporting organizational innovation

Dependent variable: Psychological Empowerment

As can be seen, Table 6 shows that there is a positive and strong relationship between the research independent and dependent factors (R=0.759). Thus, if the level of predecessors supporting organizational innovation goes up, then psychological empowerment will increase. In addition, the research model is significant (F=334.98; p<0.01). The F-Value of 334.98 which is high indicates the explanatory power of the model. The R² value of 0.576 means that 57.6% of the variation in employees' perceptions of psychological empowerment are explained by the level of predecessors supporting organizational innovation.

Their lack of auto-correlation problem in their research model can be seen from the value of Durbin-Watson (DW=1.42) which is within the acceptable range [1.5 to 2.5]. From the model, it was found that the effect of predecessors supporting organizational innovation on employees' psychological empowerment is significant (β=0.759, t=18.302; p<0.01). Thus, the main hypothesis of this research which states that "there is a statistically significant effect of predecessors supporting organizational innovation on employees' psychological empowerment" is supported.

In order to test each of the research's sub-hypotheses, the multiple regression analysis was carried out on each of the independent factors (employee participation, training and development, organizational culture, motivations, leadership pattern, and teamwork) with psychological empowerment as the dependent factor. Table 7 below shows the main outcomes of such analysis.

Table 7 Multiple Regression Analysis. **: p<0.01; *: p<0.05
Model	Standardized Coefficient (?)	t	Sig (2-tailed)
Constant (0.387)	-	1.943	0.047*
Employee participation	0.240	3.813	0.000**
Training and development	0.564	11.038	0.000**
Organizational culture	0.181	2.904	0.003**
Motivations	0.143	1.963	0.040*
Leadership pattern	0.137	3.592	0.000**
Teamwork	0.102	2.674	0.008**
R2	0.672
F-Value	82.781**
Durbin Watson	1.79

Dependent variable: Psychological Empowerment

Table 7 shows that the model is significant, with F-Value of 82.781. The R² value of 0.672 means that 67.2% of the variation in employees' psychological empowerment are explained by the six predecessors of organizational innovation. The Durbin-Watson index (DW=1.79) for this model indicates that there is no auto-correlation issue.

From the above model, was found that all of six predecessors of organizational innovation are significant: employee participation (β=0.240, t=3.813; p<0.01); training and development (β=0.564, t=11.038; p<0.01); organizational culture (β=0.181, t=2.904; p<0.01); motivations (β=0.143, t=1.963; p<0.05); leadership pattern (β=0.137, t=3.592; p<0.01); and teamwork (β=0.102, t=2.674; p<0.01). Hence all research's sub theories are supported. This showed that all of these predecessors were important predicators for employees' psychological empowerment. In addition, training and development followed by employee participation are the most important antecedents to enhance the level of employees' psychological empowerment.

Notwithstanding to above results, the examination aims to investigate the difference (if found) between Jordanian and Saudi industrial corporations by answering the following two questions:

4) Is there any statistically significant difference between Saudi and Jordanian industrial corporations in the extent of giving supporting predecessors of innovativeness?

5) Is there any statistically significant difference between Saudi and Jordanian industrial corporations in the level of psychological empowerment of their employees?

In order to test these difference (if found), independent-samples T-test was conducted. The results of this test are shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Independent-Samples T-Test Results
Variable	Mean		Standard Deviation		t	Sig(2-tailed)
	Jordan Corporations	Saudi Corporations	Jordan Corporations	Saudi Corporations
Predecessors supporting organizational innovation	3.44	4.06	0.462	0.528	0.487*	0.607
Psychological Empowerment	3.61	3.71	0.647	0.536	1.511**	0.132

* t value is calculated on the basis of equal variance assumed, because the test (Leven's test) showed that the value of (F) is not statistically significant (degrees of freedom = 247).

** t value is calculated on the basis of equal variance not assumed, because the test (Leven's test) showed that the value of (F) is statistically significant (degrees of freedom = 203).

As can be seen, Table 8 shows that there is no significant differences in the scores of both Jordanian and Saudi corporations when compared regarding the two research independent and dependent factors, with predecessors supporting organizational innovation of Jordanian corporations (M=3.44, SD=0.462) and Saudi corporations with M=4.06, SD=0.528; with t=0.487 (equal variances assumed), p=0.607 (two-tailed). The employee psychological empowerment of Jordanian corporations is with (M=3.61, SD=0.647) and Saudi corporations with M=3.71, SD=0.536; with t=1.522 (equal variances not assumed), p=0.132 (two-tailed).

These outcomes mean that management of industrial corporations in both countries are concerned about creating organizational circumstances that fostering innovation and enhancing psychological empowerment.

Discussion, Conclusion and Implications

This study has both hypothetical and observational commitments to the writing. This study is the first to investigate the effect of predecessors supporting organizational innovation on psychological empowerment into Jordan and Saudi Arabia as a collective research. The discoveries recommend that all the six investigated predecessors that supporting organizational innovation has important effects on employees’ perceptions of psychological empowerment. At the organizational level, employee participation, training and development, organizational culture, motivations, leadership pattern, and teamwork positively relate to employees' psychological empowerment. This finding is important for two reasons. In the first place, the discoveries of this exploration are predictable with past examination led in developed countries (Peter & Peter, 1988). This exploration, led in genuine work settings at two Arab countries, finds a positive connection between predecessors supporting organizational innovation and psychological empowerment. Second, these finding is an significant contribution to the literature in that it shows employee participation, training and development, organizational culture, motivations, leadership pattern, and teamwork as crucial psychological mechanisms through which management/ leadership influences employees' innovation.

At the nation level of examination, this examination reports that there are no critical differences between the research two-country of investigation. This may demonstrate to the high level of mindfulness toward the importance of predecessors supporting organizational innovation in the reviewed corporations into Jordan and Saudi Arabia. This may lead us to infer that the all-inclusiveness of management can take place into such these subjects, especially if we add the consistent discoveries of this research with the examination conducted in the developed countries.

The discoveries of this exploration demonstrate that training and development followed by worker participation are the most main predecessors to upgrade the level of employees' psychological empowerment. These discoveries may due to the nature of psychological empowerment that has a different ascribes in comparison to structural empowerment. The main ascribes are "state of mind" and "motivational appeal". Likewise, psychological empowerment is considered a multi-faceted construct mirroring the various components of being employee psychologically empowered.

All in all, it is trusted that the examination discoveries can be utilized as a reason for managers in industrial corporations to build their insight and comprehension on the most proficient method to put resources into their HR by expanding their awareness toward psychological empowerment through establishing the proper innovation environment. Specifically, it is hoped that managers will be able to understand the impact of some predecessors in their organizational environment on their employees' perspective. From the findings in this study, it can be concluded that the critical impact of training and development, and employee participation on psychological empowerment were mostly settled. Managers unquestionably need to guarantee that workers are well trained and have the full opportunity to participate in decisions at individual and organizational levels. More focus should be on organizational culture and teamwork as predecessors supporting organizational innovation (discovered to be average state), and rooms for employees to exercise empowerment in order to enhance their performance thus providing innovative ideas to their corporations.

Future research may look at the effect predecessors supporting organizational innovation on psychological empowerment in various areas and different Middle Easterner contexts and countries. In addition, future studies can explore another predecessor that has impact on psychological empowerment such as employees' learning and growth, performance goal orientation, managerial effectiveness, employees' profile, organizational power, and technology utilization rate.

References

1. Adrian, W. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice- personnel review. Emerald Insight, 27(1), 1-10.
2. Almuth, M., & Mark, N.K. (2010). UK managers' conceptions of employee training and development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(7), 1-2.
3. Amabile, T.M. (1990). Individual creativity to organizational innovation. Diary Study Database, In Harvard Business School Dataverse
4. Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 77-87.
5. Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
6. Andersson, F., Freedman, M., Haltiwanger, J., Lane, J., & Shaw, K., (2009). Reaching for the stars: Who pays for talent in innovative industries? Economic Journal, 119(538), 308-332.
7. Bauernschuster, S., Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2008). The impact of continuous training on a firm’s innovations. Leading House Working Paper No. 24. The Swiss leading house on economics of education, firm behavior and training policies is a research program of the Swiss federal office for professional education and technology (OPET).
8. Beomcheol, K., & Thomas, G. (2005). The relationship between leader-member exchange (lmx) and psychological empowerment: a quick casual restaurant employee correlation study. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29 (4), 468-483.
9. Beverley, A., Sparks, G., Bradley, V., & Callan J. (1998). The impact of staff empowerment and communication style on customer evaluations: The special case of service failure. Psychology & Marketing, 14(5), 475-493.
10. Brian, T. (2009), Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes, Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 673-679.
11. Carlo, B., & Ermanno, T. (2006). Worker motivations, job satisfaction, and loyalty in public, Nonprofit Social ServicesNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 1-25.
12. Charles, O.E. (2004). Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational innovations in the construction industry: An examination of critical success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(5), 1-3
13. Christine, M. (1996). An analysis of the concept of empowerment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23(2), 305-313.
14. Chun-Fang, C., & Tsung, H. (2012). The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 180–190.
15. Clinton, O.L., & Laurence, S.F. (2001) Improving management performance in rapidly changing organizations. Journal of Management Development, 20(1), 1-15.
16. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.B. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 471-482.
17. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 555-590.
18. Denison, R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
19. Harrison, N., & Samson, D. (2002). Technology Management: Text and International Cases. McGraw Hill/Irwin, New York.
20. Heather, K., & Spence, L. (1997). The effects of teamwork on staff perception of empowerment and job satisfaction. Healthcare Management Forum, 10(2), 1-3.
21. Herman, A., & Kurt, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451-474.
22. Iain, M., Cockburn, R., Henderson, M., & Scott, S. (2000) Untangling the origins of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10‐11), 1123-1145.
23. Manthoor, I., Jamal, M. (2008). Lesan Al-arab, Dar Alhurrya for publishing & distribution & printing, Egypt.
24. Javier, L.M., Antonia, R.M., & Victor, G.M. (2004). Influence of support leadership and teamwork cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and performance: An empirical examination. Technovation, 25(10): 1159-1172.
25. Mustafa, A.S. (April 2004). Employees’ empowerment, distinguishing features and metrics, Paper Presented at the Fourteenth International Conference for Training and Development, 20-22.
26. Víctor, G.M., & Eulogio, C.P. (2007). Leadership and organizational learning's role on innovation and performance: Lessons from spain. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(3), 349-359.
27. Jacobus J. (1985). Individual problems of self-definition an overview, and a view. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8(4), 1-10.
28. Stechmiller, J.K., & Yarandi, H.N. (1992). Job satisfaction among critical care nurses. American Journal of Critical Care, 1(3), 37-44.
29. Kanter, R.M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. M. Straw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
30. Karel, D.W., & Jaap, J. (1999). Organizational culture. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(4), 497-502.
31. Knol, J., & Van Linge, R. (2009). Innovative behavior: the effect of structural and psychological empowerment on nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(1), 359-370.
32. Lawler, III, Edward, E. (1990). High-involvement management: participative strategies for improving organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
33. Liden, R.C., & Tewksbury, T.W. (1995). Empowerment and work teams. In G.R. Ferris, S.D. Rosen & D.T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of Human Resource Management,386-403, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
34. Markku, K. (1991) Interpersonal conflicts at work and psychosocial characteristics of employees. Social Science & Medicine, 32(9), 1051-1056.
35. Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the Terrain. Sage.
36. Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-655.
37. Onne, J. (2010). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co‐workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 347-364.
38. Pearson, C.A.L., & Chatterjee, S.R. (1996). Implementing empowerment through subunit clusters: A western australian case study. Empowerment in Organizations, 4(3): 16- 25.
39. Peter, C., & Peter, D.S. (1988). Satisfaction, market wages, & labor relations. Journal of Economy and Society, 27(1), 56-73.
40. Romijn, A., & Albaladejo, M. (2002). Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England. Research Policy, 31(7), 1053-1067.
41. Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 1442-1465.
42. Spreitzer, G.M. (2017). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483-504.
43. Spreitzer, G.M. (2007). A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. Sage Publications.
44. Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A., & Nason, S.W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679-704.
45. Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J.L, & Klein, S.A. (1997). Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 27-41.
46. Thomas, C.P. (2001). Competitive advantage: Logical and philosophical considerations. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 875-888.
47. Timur, K., & Antanas, M. (2017). The definition and classification of innovation. Journal of Business and Public Administration, 8(1), 59-72.
48. Victor, J.C. (1991). Individual and organizational strategies for coping with organizational change. Work & Stress, 7(1), 63-75.
49. Yan, X., Sarah, H.P., & Tanja, M. (2013). Teamwork and collaboration. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics.
50. Yoon, J.K., & Jung, W.L. (2011). Perceived trustworthiness of supervisors, employee satisfaction and cooperation. Public Management Review, 13(7), 941-965.
51. Yukl, G., & Becker, W.S. (2006). Effective empowerment in organizations. Organization Management Journal: Linking Theory & Practice, 3(3): 210-231.