INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5458

www.rsisinternational.org

Employee Empowerment Across Functional Areas: A Profile-Based

Analysis of Hotel Employees

Estayo, John Edward S.

College of Business and Accountancy, Tarlac State University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100431

Received: 04 December 2025; Accepted: 10 December 2025; Published: 16 December 2025

ABSTRACT

Empowerment in organizations emphasizes the importance of a shared vision, clear communication, and mutual

trust so that employees understand the goals and expectations of the organization. Without this common

understanding, empowerment efforts risk creating confusion rather than improving performance. When

employees feel trusted and are encouraged to take initiative without fear of punishment, they become more willing

to take risks and contribute meaningfully to organizational goals.

Employee empowerment has gained significant attention in both research and practice because of its strong

relationship with improved job satisfaction, commitment, and overall performance. Empowered employees are

able to make timely decisions, respond to environmental changes, and contribute to the organization’s flexibility

and innovativeness. As globalization increases workplace demands, organizations that promote empowerment

are better positioned to motivate, retain, and fully utilize their workforce. Empowerment involves breaking

boundaries between management and employees, fostering trust, enhancing motivation, and enabling

participation in decision-making.

Scholars and practitioners highlight that empowerment is not simply a transfer of authority but also a leadership

and motivational strategy. Effective empowerment involves leadership behaviors such as coaching, mentoring,

valuing contributions, encouraging initiative, and supporting employees’ autonomy. Research shows that

psychological empowerment—characterized by autonomy, competence, meaningfulness, and impact—positively

influences employee performance, motivation, and willingness to exert extra effort, especially during

organizational challenges.

Although empowerment has been studied extensively worldwide, there remains a need to examine how it operates

in specific local contexts. In the hotel and restaurant industry, where employees differ widely in background,

education, culture, and personality, the dynamics of empowerment may vary significantly. This study thus seeks

to explore the empowerment level of hotel employees in Tarlac City and determine whether demographic factors

such as age, gender, educational attainment, length of employment, and number of trainings influence their sense

of empowerment. Given the limited local research, this study is positioned as a relevant and timely contribution

to understanding empowerment within the hospitality sector.

Keywords: Autonomy, Empowerment, Hotel, Participation, Middle Management, Responsibility

INTRODUCTION

Employee empowerment has increasingly become a central theme in contemporary organizational management,

grounded in the premise that employees must share a common understanding of organizational goals, strategies,

and expectations. Establishing this shared vision is essential, as attempts to empower employees without clear

communication can lead to confusion and weakened organizational cohesion. Effective empowerment requires

management to articulate the direction of the organization and build an environment of mutual trust where

employees feel confident to take initiative without fear of punishment. When trust is present, empowerment not

only enhances decision-making but also encourages risk-taking, innovation, and a higher level of ownership

among employees.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5459

www.rsisinternational.org

Across various sectors, empowerment is widely recognized as a key contributor to organizational success, with

studies reporting strong linkages between empowerment and improved job satisfaction, commitment, and

performance. As global competition intensifies, organizations increasingly rely on empowered employees who

can act quickly, adapt to changing external conditions, and contribute to organizational flexibility. Empowerment

further promotes motivation and engagement by breaking traditional hierarchical barriers and allowing

employees to participate more actively in decisions that affect their work. Scholars argue that when implemented

effectively, empowerment strengthens organizational innovativeness and enhances competitiveness in the global

marketplace.

Leadership plays a critical role in creating conditions for empowerment. Empowering leaders provide coaching,

mentoring, and developmental opportunities; encourage initiative; recognize employee contributions; and offer

autonomy in determining work methods. Research on psychological empowerment suggests that dimensions such

as autonomy, competence, meaningfulness, and impact significantly enhance employee performance and intrinsic

motivation. Employees who perceive higher levels of empowerment tend to demonstrate greater effort, creativity,

and resilience, especially during periods of organizational turbulence. These findings underscore the importance

of empowerment as both a management technique and a motivational strategy.

While empowerment has been examined in numerous organizational contexts, gaps remain in understanding how

empowerment emerges within specific cultural and industry settings. The hospitality industry, particularly hotel

operations, presents unique dynamics due to its diverse workforce and the demanding nature of service delivery.

Employees vary widely in terms of educational background, cultural orientation, personality, and work

experiences, all of which may influence their perception of empowerment. In Tarlac City, limited empirical

research has explored empowerment among hotel employees despite the sector's growing significance. This study

therefore seeks to assess the empowerment levels of hotel employees in the locality and examine whether

demographic factors—such as age, gender, educational attainment, length of employment, and number of

trainings attended—significantly influence their sense of empowerment. Addressing this gap will contribute to a

more nuanced understanding of empowerment within the Philippine hospitality industry and inform strategies for

enhancing employee involvement, performance, and organizational effectiveness.

A. Statement of the Problem

The study aimed to determine the profile of the hotel employees in Tarlac City and their level of empowerment.

Specifically, the researcher sought answers to the following questions:

1. How are the respondents in Tarlac City described in terms of

1.1 highest educational attainment,

1.2 length of employment,

1.3 department/unit,

1.4 number of trainings, and

1.5 seminars attended?

2. How are the respondents described in terms of employee empowerment along areas of

2.1 autonomy,

2.2 participation, and

2.3 responsibility?

3. Is there a relationship between the respondents’ profile and their empowerment?

4. What are the problems encountered by the respondents in terms of empowerment?

5. What can be proposed or recommended based on the findings of the study?

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5460

www.rsisinternational.org

B. Hypothesis of the Study

The hypothesis hereunder was tested at .05 level of significance:

1. There is no significant relationship between the hotel employees’ profile and their level of empowerment.

C. Related Literature

Employee empowerment has been widely examined in organizational and management literature as a strategic

mechanism for enhancing employee motivation, performance, and organizational effectiveness. Rather than

being viewed merely as the delegation of authority, empowerment is increasingly conceptualized as a

multidimensional construct that encompasses psychological, structural, and relational components. Scholars

argue that empowerment strengthens employees’ sense of meaning, competence, autonomy, and impact, thereby

fostering intrinsic motivation and improved work outcomes (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995).

Theoretical Foundations of Employee Empowerment

Early empowerment theories emphasized structural arrangements, such as decentralization of authority and

participative management practices. However, later scholarship shifted attention toward psychological

empowerment, focusing on employees’ perceptions rather than formal structures. Spreitzer (1995) identified four

core dimensions of psychological empowerment—meaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and

impact—which collectively shape how empowered employees feel in their roles. These dimensions underscore

that empowerment exists when employees believe their work is valuable, feel capable of performing it, have

autonomy in execution, and perceive their actions as influential to organizational outcomes.

Conger and Kanungo (1988) further argued that empowerment enhances intrinsic motivation by increasing self-

efficacy, particularly when employees experience autonomy and responsibility. This theoretical shift suggests

that empowerment outcomes depend not only on managerial intent but also on how employees interpret their

work environment. In service-oriented industries such as hospitality, these perceptions are especially critical, as

employees frequently make real-time decisions that directly affect customer satisfaction.

Autonomy as a Dimension of Empowerment

Autonomy refers to employees’ perceived freedom to determine how they perform their work and make decisions

within their roles. Literature consistently links autonomy with improved performance, creativity, and job

satisfaction. Singh (2003) emphasized that empowered organizations provide employees with discretion over task

execution, allowing them to adapt to situational demands. Similarly, Venkat Ratnam (2006) viewed autonomy as

central to empowerment, arguing that enriched jobs promote accountability and initiative.

Empirical studies in hospitality settings support this perspective. Fulford and Enz (1995) found that granting

autonomy to hotel employees enhances service speed and quality, while Kilon (2003) reported that autonomy

enables frontline staff to respond effectively to customer needs. However, some scholars caution that excessive

autonomy without adequate guidance may lead to role ambiguity or inconsistent service delivery (Ravichandran

& Shirley, 2006). This highlights the importance of balancing autonomy with clear standards and accountability

mechanisms.

Participation and Shared Decision-Making

Participation represents employees’ involvement in organizational decision-making, planning, and goal-setting.

It is closely associated with the impact dimension of psychological empowerment, as employees feel empowered

when they perceive their contributions influence organizational direction (Spreitzer, 1995). Numerous studies

suggest that participatory practices enhance organizational commitment, trust, and innovation (Baird & Wang,

2010; Ongori, 2009).

Despite these benefits, participation remains unevenly implemented, particularly in hierarchical or owner-

managed organizations. Heathfield (2012) noted that while many organizations espouse empowerment

rhetorically, decision-making authority often remains centralized. In hospitality contexts, studies reveal that

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5461

www.rsisinternational.org

participation is frequently limited to operational matters, with strategic decisions retained by top management

(Baumgartner, 2014). This restricted participation can undermine empowerment by diminishing employees’

perceived value and influence, even when autonomy in task execution is present.

Responsibility and Accountability

Responsibility refers to employees’ sense of ownership over their work and accountability for outcomes. Scholars

emphasize that empowerment is incomplete without responsibility, as autonomy without accountability may

weaken performance standards (Roller, 1998). Responsibility aligns with the meaningfulness and competence

dimensions of psychological empowerment, where employees view their work as important and believe their

actions matter.

Research consistently shows that empowered employees demonstrate higher responsibility, professionalism, and

commitment to quality outcomes. Dessler (2011) argued that responsibility is reinforced through clear

expectations, performance feedback, and professional development. In hospitality settings, responsibility is

particularly salient due to the direct link between employee behavior and customer satisfaction (Briggs, 2008).

However, responsibility may also be reinforced by external pressures—such as customer expectations—rather

than organizational empowerment structures alone, suggesting a complex interaction between personal ethics and

organizational practices.

Empowerment and Employee Performance in Hospitality

A substantial body of research establishes a positive relationship between employee empowerment and

performance outcomes, including productivity, service quality, and customer satisfaction. Zeglat et al. (2014)

found that psychological empowerment significantly predicts customer-oriented behavior among hotel

employees, surpassing the influence of structural empowerment. Similarly, Dhevabanchachai and

Wattanacharoensil (2013) emphasized the role of training and skill development in strengthening empowerment

and service performance.

However, scholars also note that empowerment outcomes vary across contexts. Cultural norms, leadership styles,

and organizational structures influence how empowerment is enacted and experienced. In collectivist cultures,

employees may value harmony and job security over participation, potentially limiting empowerment’s impact

(Hechanova & Franco). These findings suggest that empowerment cannot be universally applied without

considering contextual and cultural factors.

Local Studies on Employee Empowerment

Local Philippine studies generally support international findings, highlighting empowerment’s positive effects

on job satisfaction and performance. Palo (2009) reported that empowerment enhances motivation among service

employees, while Frialde (2011) identified gaps in participatory decision-making within local hotels. Tolenada

(2009) further noted that manpower and structural challenges in Philippine hotels often limit employee

involvement in organizational planning.

Despite these contributions, local studies tend to focus on empowerment outcomes rather than examining

empowerment dimensions in relation to employee profile characteristics. Moreover, many studies do not

explicitly integrate psychological empowerment theory, resulting in descriptive rather than theory-driven

analyses.

Research Gap

While extensive international and local literature confirms the importance of employee empowerment, several

gaps remain evident. First, limited empirical research has examined empowerment among hotel employees in

provincial Philippine contexts, particularly in emerging hospitality destinations such as Tarlac City. Second,

existing studies often treat empowerment as a general construct, without systematically analyzing its core

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5462

www.rsisinternational.org

dimensions—autonomy, participation, and responsibility—and how these dimensions vary across employee

profile characteristics. Finally, few studies explicitly integrate psychological empowerment theory to explain why

certain empowerment dimensions are stronger or weaker within specific organizational settings. Addressing these

gaps, the present study examines the level of empowerment among hotel employees in Tarlac City across

autonomy, participation, and responsibility, and investigates how employee profile variables relate to these

empowerment dimensions.

D. Research Method

This study employed a descriptive-correlational research design to examine the profile of hotel employees in

Tarlac City and determine their level of empowerment. The descriptive component enabled the researcher to

characterize participants in terms of highest educational attainment, length of employment, department

assignment, and the number of trainings and seminars attended, while the correlational component was used to

identify whether these profile variables were associated with empowerment levels. A total of 43 middle-

management employees from four Department of Tourism–accredited hotels—Central Park Hotel, L Square

Hotel, La Majarica Hotel, and Microtel—participated in the study. These employees represented key functional

departments such as housekeeping, front office, food and beverage, and accounting, making them suitable

respondents due to their involvement in operational and supervisory tasks where empowerment is enacted.

Data were gathered using two instruments. The first was a structured profile survey that collected demographic

and employment information. The second was the Perception of Empowerment Instrument (PEI) developed by

Roller (1998), a 15-item tool measuring autonomy, participation, and responsibility as dimensions of

empowerment. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “always,” enabling

classification of empowerment levels from not empowered to highly empowered. The instrument underwent pilot

testing among hotel employees in Clark, Pampanga, and reliability assessment using Cronbach’s alpha, which

confirmed satisfactory internal consistency across all constructs. Its content validity was further strengthened

through the review of four experts in management, research, and hotel operations.

Prior to the administration of the instruments, formal permission to conduct the study was secured from hotel

managers and administrators. The researcher coordinated with designated contact persons in each hotel to

distribute and retrieve questionnaires, ensuring that employees were able to answer them within their available

schedules. Follow-ups were conducted to achieve full retrieval, and all responses were handled with

confidentiality and used solely for academic purposes. The data collected were analyzed using both descriptive

and inferential statistics. Frequencies and percentages were computed to summarize the respondents’ profiles,

while weighted means were used to assess empowerment levels according to the interpretation scale provided by

Roller (1998). To determine whether empowerment was significantly related to any of the profile variables,

Pearson’s Chi-Square Test of Association was employed at a 0.05 level of significance. This statistical technique

was appropriate for identifying relationships among categorical variables without manipulating conditions,

thereby aligning with the natural setting of the study.

Figure 1. Paradigm of the study

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5463

www.rsisinternational.org

This study is anchored on psychological empowerment theory, which posits that empowerment is reflected in

employees’ perceptions of autonomy, participation, and responsibility within their work environment (Conger &

Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995).

The independent variables consist of selected employee profile characteristics, namely age, gender, highest

educational attainment, length of employment, department or unit assignment, number of trainings attended, and

number of seminars attended. The dependent variables are the three dimensions of employee empowerment:

autonomy, participation, and responsibility. Autonomy refers to employees’ perceived freedom in carrying out

work tasks and making decisions within their job scope.

The framework assumes that employee profile characteristics may influence each empowerment dimension to

varying degrees. While autonomy and responsibility may be embedded in job design and professional norms,

participation is expected to be more sensitive to organizational structures and managerial practices.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The respondents consisted primarily of young to early middle-aged hotel employees, with most falling within the

20–34 age range. The workforce was predominantly female, college-educated, and employed for six to eight

years, with a large proportion assigned to housekeeping and front-office departments. Most respondents had

attended multiple trainings and seminars, indicating exposure to continuous professional development. This

profile suggests a relatively experienced and trainable workforce, consistent with the operational demands of the

hospitality industry, where service quality, accountability, and adaptability are critical.

From a human capital perspective, this demographic composition aligns with hospitality labor patterns reported

in regional and international studies, where hotels rely heavily on younger, formally educated employees for

service-oriented roles (Zeglat et al., 2014; Baumgartner, 2014). However, while experience and training are

expected to enhance empowerment, empowerment outcomes depend not only on individual characteristics but

also on organizational structures and leadership practices.

Level of Employee Empowerment:

TABLE I AUTONOMY

Indicators

Description

I am my own boss most of the time.

4.35

Agree

I have freedom to decide how to do my job.

4.19

Agree

I can be creative in finding solutions to problems.

4.05

Agree

I have a lot of autonomy in my job.

3.88

Agree

I make my own decisions about how to do my work.

3.86

Agree

Grand Mean

4.07

Empowered

The results show that hotel employees generally perceive themselves as empowered in terms of autonomy, with

a mean score of 4.07 indicating agreement across all indicators. Respondents reported feeling like “their own

boss,” noting that they understand their job expectations and can work responsibly without constant supervision.

They also expressed having sufficient freedom to decide how to perform their tasks, although this freedom

operates within the boundaries of their job descriptions and operational requirements. Employees further agreed

that they can be creative in solving problems and make decisions related to their work, demonstrating practical

problem-solving skills appropriate to their departments. Despite this autonomy, respondents acknowledged that

decision-making still operates within a “span of control,” and they seek supervisory guidance when issues exceed

their job scope. Overall, findings suggest that employees experience a strong sense of independence and

accountability, reflecting an empowered work environment in terms of autonomy.

Results indicate that hotel employees are generally empowered in terms of autonomy, with respondents agreeing

that they have freedom in deciding how to perform their tasks, make work-related decisions, and creatively solve

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5464

www.rsisinternational.org

problems within their job scope. This finding suggests that employees perceive a substantial level of self-direction

and independence in daily operations.

From the lens of psychological empowerment theory (Spreitzer, 1995), autonomy reflects the self-determination

dimension, wherein employees experience control over how they carry out their work. The high autonomy scores

imply that employees possess clarity in role expectations and confidence in task execution, allowing them to

function effectively without constant supervision. This aligns with Conger and Kanungo’s (1988) assertion that

empowerment enhances intrinsic motivation when employees perceive meaning and competence in their roles.

Comparatively, similar findings have been reported in hospitality settings in other countries, where operational

autonomy is granted to frontline and middle-management staff to ensure quick service recovery and customer

satisfaction (Fulford & Enz, 1995; Kilon, 2003). Local studies likewise suggest that Filipino hotel employees

often enjoy task-level autonomy due to trust developed through experience and tenure (Palo, 2009). However,

this autonomy remains bounded by organizational policies and standards, indicating that empowerment is

operational rather than strategic in nature.

TABLE II PARTICIPATION

Indicators

Description

I am involved when changes are planned.

2.61

Neutral

I am involved in creating our vision of the future.

2.54

Neutral

I am involved in determining organizational goals.

2.47

Disagree

I am involved in decisions that affect me.

2.42

Disagree

My input is solicited in planning changes.

2.26

Disagree

Grand Mean

2.46

Somewhat Empowered

The findings indicate that hotel employees feel only somewhat empowered in terms of participation, as reflected

by a grand mean of 2.46. Respondents expressed a neutral stance regarding their involvement in planning changes

or creating the organization’s vision, and they generally disagreed that they participate in setting goals,

influencing decisions, or providing input on organizational changes. Interviews confirmed that major decisions—

including planning, goal-setting, and policy development—are made exclusively by top management or hotel

owners, leaving middle-management employees with limited influence beyond their assigned tasks. Matters such

as salary adjustments, incentives, and working conditions are likewise determined at higher managerial levels.

As a result, employees feel they have minimal opportunity to contribute to organizational direction or workplace

improvement, although they comply with existing rules to maintain job security and stability.

In contrast, respondents were found to be only somewhat empowered in terms of participation, particularly in

areas involving organizational planning, goal-setting, and decision-making that affect them directly. Employees

reported limited involvement in planning changes, shaping organizational vision, and contributing inputs to

management decisions.

Theoretically, participation reflects the impact dimension of psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995),

where employees perceive that their actions can influence organizational outcomes. The low participation scores

suggest a disconnect between task autonomy and strategic inclusion, indicating a predominantly centralized

management structure. While employees are trusted to execute tasks independently, they are excluded from

higher-level decision-making processes.

This pattern is consistent with findings in developing-country hospitality contexts, where decision-making

authority is often retained by owners and top management (Ongori, 2009; Ravichandran & Shirley, 2006).

International studies emphasize that limited participation can weaken empowerment despite high autonomy, as

employees may feel undervalued or disengaged from organizational direction (Baird & Wang, 2010). Local

research similarly notes that Filipino employees tend to accept hierarchical decision-making structures, even

when participation is restricted, due to cultural norms and job security concerns (Hechanova & Franco).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5465

www.rsisinternational.org

TABLE III RESPONSIBILITY

Indicators

Description

I take responsibility for what I do.

4.59

Strongly Agree

I am responsible for the outcomes of my actions.

4.54

Strongly Agree

I am personally responsible for the work I do.

4.54

Agree

I am responsible for the outcomes of my decision.

4.47

Agree

My ideas and inputs are valued.

4.40

Agree

Grand Mean

4.50

Highly Empowered

The results show that employees feel highly empowered in terms of responsibility, with a grand mean of 4.50.

Respondents strongly agreed that they take responsibility for their actions and the outcomes of their work,

recognizing that meeting standards and performing tasks effectively are essential to maintaining service quality

and avoiding customer dissatisfaction or supervisory reprimands. Interviews further illustrated this sense of

accountability, with employees describing situations in which they assumed additional duties to support

colleagues and ensure operational continuity. Respondents also agreed that they are accountable for their

decisions and that their ideas are valued, suggesting a strong sense of personal commitment and dedication to

their roles. Overall, these findings portray a workforce that demonstrates high levels of ownership,

professionalism, and reliability in carrying out their responsibilities.

Results further reveal that respondents are highly empowered in terms of responsibility, with strong agreement

that they take accountability for their work and the outcomes of their decisions. This suggests a deeply ingrained

sense of ownership and professional commitment among hotel employees.

Responsibility corresponds to the meaningfulness and competence dimensions of psychological empowerment

(Spreitzer, 1995), where employees perceive their work as important and believe they are capable of performing

it well. High responsibility scores indicate that employees internalize service standards and recognize the direct

link between their performance and customer satisfaction. This is particularly critical in hospitality, where service

failures are immediately visible to guests.

Comparable findings have been reported in both international and local studies, where hotel employees

demonstrate high responsibility even in environments with limited participation (Dessler, 2011; Briggs, 2008).

This phenomenon suggests that responsibility may be reinforced more by professional norms and customer

expectations than by formal empowerment structures.

Relationship Between Employee Profile and Empowerment:

Analysis of the relationship between profile variables and empowerment dimensions reveals nuanced patterns.

No significant relationships were found between employee profile variables and autonomy, indicating that

perceptions of task-level independence are consistent across age, gender, education, tenure, and department. This

suggests that autonomy is embedded in job design rather than influenced by individual characteristics.

In terms of participation, significant relationships were observed with age, length of employment, number of

trainings, and number of seminars attended. Employees with longer tenure and greater exposure to training

appeared more aware of organizational processes and, consequently, more sensitive to their exclusion from

decision-making. This finding supports the argument that as employees gain experience and knowledge, their

expectations for involvement increase (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

For responsibility, significant relationships emerged only with the number of trainings and seminars attended.

This underscores the role of continuous learning in reinforcing accountability and professional maturity. Training

and seminars may strengthen employees’ understanding of standards, ethics, and service quality, thereby

enhancing their sense of responsibility regardless of demographic characteristics.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5466

www.rsisinternational.org

TABLE IV PROFILE AND AUTONOMY

Profile Variables

p-value

Interpretation

Age

16.478

0.087

Not Significant

Gender

1.978

0.372

Not Significant

Highest Educational Attainment

7.426

0.491

Not Significant

Length of Employment

5.043

0.753

Not Significant

Department/Unit

5.259

.0511

Not Significant

Number of Trainings Attended

3.299

0.770

Not Significant

Number of Seminars Attended

5.128

0.527

Not Significant

Table IV shows the statistical relationship between profile and empowerment. Data computed show that no

significant relationship was registered between age (X2 = 16.478, p=0.087); gender (X2 = 1.978, p=0.372);

highest educational attainment (X2 = 7.426, p=0.491); length of employment (X2 = 5.043, p=0.753);

department/unit (X2 = 5.259, p=.0511); number of trainings attended (X2 = 3.299, p=0.770); and number of

seminars attended (X2 = 5.128, p=0.527) and the level of employee empowerment of the respondents in terms of

autonomy.

Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between the employees’ profile in all areas and

the level of empowerment is accepted. It could therefore be deduced that the profile of the respondents does not

in any way contribute to the generally “empowered” level of respondents in terms of autonomy, particularly in

terms of being their own boss most of the time, having freedom to decide how to do their job, and being creative

in finding solutions to problems.

TABLE V PROFILE AND PARTICIPATION

Profile Variables

p-value

Interpretation

Age

19.086

0.039

Significant

Gender

2.237

0.327

Not Significant

Highest Educational Attainment

9.933

0.270

Not Significant

Length of Employment

18.224

0.042

Significant

Department/Unit

5.898

0.435

Not Significant

Number of Trainings Attended

18.046

0.043

Significant

Number of Seminars Attended

24.497

0.010

Significant

The analysis shows that gender, highest educational attainment, and department or unit assignment do not have

a significant relationship with employees’ level of empowerment in terms of participation. This means that these

profile variables do not meaningfully influence how involved employees feel in organizational planning, goal-

setting, or shaping the hotel’s future direction. Regardless of differences in gender, educational background, or

departmental placement, respondents consistently reported limited participation in decision-making processes.

These results reinforce earlier findings that middle-management employees are seldom included in planning

changes or determining goals, and that key decisions remain under the control of top management or hotel owners.

Overall, employees’ demographic and work characteristics did not account for their generally “somewhat

empowered” status in the area of participation.

TABLE VI PROFILE AND RESPONSIBILITY

Profile Variables

p-value

Interpretation

Age

4.686

0.455

Not Significant

Gender

1.311

0.252

Not Significant

Highest Educational Attainment

3.920

0.417

Not Significant

Length of Employment

4.961

0.291

Not Significant

Department/Unit

1.007

0.800

Not Significant

Number of Trainings Attended

11.403

0.005

Significant

Number of Seminars Attended

8.419

0.038

Significant

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5467

www.rsisinternational.org

The results show that age, gender, educational attainment, length of employment, and department assignment

have no significant relationship with employees’ sense of responsibility, indicating that these characteristics do

not influence the generally high levels of responsibility reported by the respondents. Employees across different

demographic and job categories similarly demonstrated strong perceptions of being accountable for their actions

and the outcomes of their work. In contrast, the number of trainings and seminars attended showed a significant

relationship with responsibility, suggesting that professional development experiences contribute to employees’

heightened sense of accountability and commitment to their tasks. Overall, while most profile variables do not

affect responsibility, exposure to more trainings and seminars appears to strengthen employees’ empowerment

in this area.

Problems Encountered by the Respondents on Employee Empowerment:

TABLE VII PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY THE HOTEL EMPLOYEES

Problems

I am seldom involved on planning changes and determining goals.

72.09%

Ineffective communication.

60.47%

My ideas and inputs are never solicited.

55.81%

There is no clear plan on achievement or advancement.

53.49%

My superiors abdicate all responsibility and accountability for decision making.

51.16%

I feel under-compensated and under-titled for the responsibilities.

46.51%

I feel under-noticed, under-praised and under-appreciated.

44.19%

Insufficient training/coaching/mentoring.

39.53%

My superiors don’t really understand what employee empowerment means.

37.21%

The findings show several recurring problems encountered by hotel employees, the most prominent of which is

their minimal involvement in planning changes and determining organizational goals, reported by 72.09% of

respondents. Employees shared that major operational decisions are predetermined by top management, leaving

them with little influence over the hotel’s direction and resulting in a generally low sense of empowerment in

participation.

This lack of involvement is compounded by ineffective communication (60.47%) and the perception that their

ideas and inputs are rarely solicited (55.81%). Respondents also noted unclear pathways for advancement

(53.49%) and instances where supervisors avoid responsibility in decision-making (51.16%), creating further

disconnect between management and staff.

Interviews affirmed that limited communication often leads to misunderstandings and poor working conditions.

Employees explained that while their suggestions may be heard, these are seldom integrated into formal plans,

and key decisions—such as shift assignments, salary adjustments, and organizational policies—remain strictly

under top management’s discretion.

Additional concerns included feeling under-compensated or under-recognized for their responsibilities,

insufficient coaching or mentoring, and a belief that some supervisors do not fully understand the concept of

empowerment. Collectively, these issues reinforce employees’ perception of being only “somewhat empowered,”

particularly in areas requiring participation and shared decision-making.

TABLE VIII PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION

Areas/Problems

Strategies

Activities

Means of Verification

Less involvement

of employees on

planning changes

and determining

goals

Establishment of employee

union groups

Involvement of employees

during corporate meetings

and conferences, at least

Conference/meeting of

employees to elect Union

Officers

Percentage of Attendance of

employees

By-laws of the union

Memorandum of Agreement

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5468

www.rsisinternational.org

represented by a president

of the union group

Corporate meetings involving

top, middle and rank and file

employees

Vote/involvement of the union

president (representing all

employees) on organizational

changes

Ineffective

communication

Framing of a practical

communication plan

Use of bulletins,

memoranda, etc.

Conference on

organizational changes

Conference/training/seminar

to frame communication plan

Regular information

dissemination through posting

in bulletins, memo, etc.

Holding of seminars/trainings

on organizational changes

Actual communication plan,

monitoring sheet, supervisory

plans

Regularized information

dissemination using bulletins,

memo, etc.

Percentage of attendance of the

employees in the

trainings/seminars

Non-solicitation

of employees’

ideas and inputs

Involvement of employees

in corporate planning and

decision-making

Corporate meetings involving

top, middle and rank and file

employees

Percentage of Attendance of

employees

Unclear plan on

achievement or

advancement.

Involvement of employees

Orientation/seminar/trainin

g of employees on plans

and development before

implementation

Orientation/seminar/training

of employees on plans and

development before

implementation

Percentage of Attendance of

employees

Accomplishment reports

Abdication of

superiors of all

responsibility and

accountability for

decision making.

Revisit of existing job

descriptions which should

incorporate employee

empowerment, particularly

focusing on participation

Conference/training/seminar

on existing job descriptions

which should incorporate

employee empowerment,

particularly focusing on

participation

Percentage of Attendance of

employees

Revised job descriptions onto

which tenets of employee

empowerment are incorporated

and improved performance

rating criteria

The most prominent problem identified was employees’ minimal involvement in planning changes and

determining organizational goals, followed by ineffective communication and lack of solicitation of employee

inputs. These issues further explain the low participation scores observed earlier and highlight structural barriers

to empowerment.

From an organizational perspective, ineffective communication and centralized decision-making undermine

empowerment by restricting information flow and limiting employees’ perceived impact (Bushe et al., 1996).

While employees accept management authority, persistent exclusion from decision-making may lead to

disengagement over time, particularly among experienced staff.

These findings reinforce the need to view empowerment as a balanced system, where autonomy and responsibility

must be complemented by meaningful participation. Without participatory mechanisms, empowerment remains

incomplete and may fail to achieve its full potential in improving organizational commitment and innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study provide a clearer understanding of the profile and empowerment levels of hotel employees

in Tarlac City. The majority of the respondents were females aged 20–34 years, most of whom were college

graduates with six to eight years of work experience in the hotel industry. A significant portion were assigned to

housekeeping departments and had participated in multiple professional development activities, typically

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5469

www.rsisinternational.org

attending four to six trainings and seven to nine seminars. These profile characteristics reflect a relatively young

yet experienced workforce with substantial exposure to both academic and skill-based preparation.

In terms of empowerment, employees reported feeling highly empowered in responsibility, indicating strong

personal accountability and commitment to their work and its outcomes. They also expressed being empowered

in autonomy, reflecting their ability to make decisions and perform tasks independently within their assigned

roles. However, they felt only somewhat empowered in participation, highlighting a limited sense of involvement

in organizational planning, goal setting, and major decision-making processes. This imbalance suggests that while

employees feel confident and responsible in their individual tasks, they experience constraints when it comes to

influencing broader organizational directions.

The correlational analysis revealed that certain profile variables, specifically gender, highest educational

attainment, and department or unit assignment, showed significant relationships with employees’ levels of

participation. This suggests that these personal and organizational attributes may shape the extent to which

employees perceive themselves as included in decision-making processes. Additionally, the number of trainings

and seminars attended had a significant association with responsibility, indicating that continuous learning and

development contribute to stronger feelings of accountability and empowerment in work-related responsibilities.

The findings emphasize that a large majority of hotel employees feel seldom involved in planning changes and

determining organizational goals. This limited participation appears to contribute to their overall lower

empowerment in this area and reinforces the perception that strategic decisions remain highly centralized among

top management. Overall, the study concludes that while employees demonstrate a strong sense of responsibility

and autonomy, their empowerment is constrained by restricted opportunities to participate in organizational

planning and decision-making.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researcher extends sincere gratitude to everyone who contributed to the successful completion of this study.

Deep appreciation is given to the hotel administrators and employees in Tarlac City who generously shared their

time and insights as respondents, making this research possible. Special thanks are also extended to the faculty

and mentors of the Graduate School of Tarlac State University for their guidance, expertise, and unwavering

support throughout the research process. Their constructive feedback strengthened the quality and direction of

this work. The researcher likewise expresses heartfelt appreciation to colleagues, friends, and family members

who offered encouragement, understanding, and motivation during the entire undertaking. Their presence and

support provided the inspiration needed to complete this study. Above all, the researcher is profoundly grateful

to the Almighty God for the wisdom, strength, and opportunities that made this scholarly endeavor achievable.

REFERENCES

1. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler set (3rd

ed.). Mind Garden.

2. Baird, K., & Wang, H. (2010). Employee empowerment: Extent of adoption and influential factors.

Personnel Review, 39(5), 574–599. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481011064154

3. Baumgartner, J. (2014). Empowerment: How to improve performance and customer satisfaction in hotels.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.05.003

4. Bourke, J. (1998). Employee empowerment and customer satisfaction in the service sector. Journal of

Management Development, 17(1), 56–67.

5. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719810199370

6. Briggs, E. (2008). The influence of employee empowerment on hotel performance. Journal of Hospitality

& Tourism Research, 32(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348007313260

7. Bushe, G. R., Havlovic, S. J., & Coetzer, G. H. (1996). Exploring empowerment from a managerial

perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1), 63–79.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886396321005

8. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice.

Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306983

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Page 5470

www.rsisinternational.org

9. Dessler, G. (2011). Human resource management (12th ed.). Pearson.

10. Dhevabanchachai, N., & Wattanacharoensil, W. (2013). Employee development and service performance

in hotel training centers. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 25(3), 120–132.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2013.826941

11. Fulford, M. D., & Enz, C. A. (1995). The impact of empowerment on service employees. Cornell Hotel

and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/001088049503600517

12. Gilaninia, S. (2012). Employee empowerment as a strategy for improving organizational performance.

African Journal of Business Management, 6(11), 4303–4311.

13. Heathfield, S. M. (2012). What is employee empowerment? The Balance Careers.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/employee-empowerment-definition-1918102

14. Kilon, F. (2003). Employee empowerment and service quality in hotel operations. International Journal

of Hospitality Management, 22(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4319(03)00023-2

15. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

16. Ongori, H. (2009). Managing behind the scenes: Employee empowerment. Research Journal of Business

Management, 3(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjbm.2009.1.7

17. Palo, J. P. (2009). Empowerment and job satisfaction among service workers in the Philippines. Philippine

Journal of Psychology, 42(2), 85–102.

18. Pitts, D. W. (2005). Leadership, empowerment, and public organizations. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 25(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X04272319

19. Potochny, J. (1998). Building empowerment in hospitality employees. Hospitality Research Journal,

21(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634809802100208

20. Ravichandran, T., & Shirley, S. (2006). Types of empowerment in organizational settings. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 19(2), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810610648938

21. Roller, S. A. (1998). Perception of Empowerment Instrument (PEI): Development and validation of a

multidimensional measure (Doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina.

22. Singh, A. (2003). Empowerment and organizational excellence. International Journal of Management,

20(3), 369–379.

23. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and

validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865

24. Tolenada, A. A. (2009). Organizational structure and manpower issues in Philippine hotels. Asia Pacific

Journal of Tourism Research, 14(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941660903112590

25. Tzafrir, S. S., Harel, G. H., Baruch, Y., & Dolan, S. L. (2004). The consequences of emerging HRM

practices for employees’ trust in their managers. Personnel Review, 33(6), 628–646.

https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480410561529

26. Venkat Ratnam, C. S. (2006). Employee empowerment: Approaches and implications. Sage Publications.

27. Zeglat, D., Aljaber, M., & Alrawabdeh, W. (2014). Understanding the impact of employee empowerment

on customer-oriented behavior in the hotel industry. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(3),

121–129. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v6n3p121