Abstract
Purpose
Customised capacity building is thought to be essential for organisations. However, empirical studies are lacking with respect to its effect on employee outcomes. This study aims to examine the effect of customised capacity building on employee outcomes including employee empowerment and employee engagement through employee learning in Ghanaian local government institutions.
Design/methodology/approach
Valid responses from 281 employees of Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) in Ghana were collected through a survey. A structural equation model was used to analyse the data and test the hypotheses formulated.
Findings
The results showed that customised capacity building has an effect on employee learning, employee empowerment, and employee engagement. Employee learning also had an effect on employee empowerment and employee engagement. In addition, employee learning partially mediated the effect of customised capacity building on both employee empowerment and employee engagement.
Originality/value
This study is of particular relevance to public organisations. As there is a dearth of studies focusing on customised capacity building, this study provides insight into incorporating the phenomenon into public sector organisations to enhance employee learning, empowerment and engagement.
Keywords
Citation
Annan-Prah, E.C. and Andoh, R.P.K. (2023), "Effects of customised capacity building on employee engagement, empowerment, and learning in Ghanaian local government institutions", Public Administration and Policy: An Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 228-241. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-06-2022-0068
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Elizabeth C. Annan-Prah and Raphael P.K. Andoh
License
Published in Public Administration and Policy. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
Capacity building has long been seen as a necessary component for accomplishing development goals (UNDP, 2009). The phenomenon is based on the idea that investing in human capital allows people to gain the skills they need to thrive and play autonomous roles in the development and renewal of their communities. Despite the gains in building capacities, Babu and Sengupta (2006) note that the development challenge for local government institutions, referred to as MMDAs in Ghana, is to translate sustainable development goals and policy statements into initiatives that identify relevant actions and resource investments. Similar reports have been presented by the UNESCAP (2015) that the capacities of municipal governments have failed to keep pace with development. In addition, Acharya and Scott (2022) mention capacity as a major limitation for local governments; given that Annan-Prah and Andoh (2023) established it is a necessity for MMDAs. Furthermore, a lack of tailor-made capacity building programmes has been discovered in district assemblies in Ghana (Ada East District Assembly Audit Unit, 2016). Sen (1999) argues that higher levels of missing capacity in society are associated with greater levels of poverty. This could be applied at the institutional levels (e.g., MMDAs) as the deprivation of capacities within institutions will inhibit the institutions from functioning effectively (Annan-Prah and Andoh, 2023).
The prevailing capacity gaps in institutions have been attributed to approaches used in building capacities. In the literature, it is contended that the traditional approaches used in building institutional capacity are largely responsible for the problematic capacities in sub-national institutions. It is acknowledged that the traditional approaches to capacity building are flawed, which paradoxically leave organisations with little in the way of transferable lessons, empowerment, and engagement (Babu and Sengupta, 2006; Noe, 2010; OECD, 2005; UNDP, 2009). Further, it is noted that public agencies are not all alike, so capacity building programmes must be tailored to their specific requirements and circumstances. The capacity building process, therefore, has to be endogenous instead of exogenous (UNDP, 2009). The endogenous capacity building is developed together with clients; pitching ideas; looking deeply into the needs and the gaps of the organisation; and identifying the potentials and possibilities so that the interventions will be able to work practically to the demands of the organisation. The endogenous process is highly appreciative of stakeholder engagement, participation, co-designing, and needs assessment, which leads to ownership, learning, empowerment, and engagement of the beneficiaries (Annan-Prah and Antwi, 2020; Chanturidze et al., 2015).
Capacity building is an important issue in MMDAs in Ghana. A 2017 report from the Local Government Service and a study by Annan-Prah and Antwi (2020) revealed that some capacity building initiatives have been conducted between 2011 and 2017 yet, the projections of local-level development have only been partially achieved (Annan-Prah and Antwi, 2020; Awortwi, 2011; Zakaria, 2013). The result is also reflected in the 2015-2017 District League Table, which shows that MMDAs are still grappling with local-level development (UNICEF and CDD Ghana, 2015). The questions that come to mind are: (1) do leadership in MMDAs involve employees in the process of capacity building to enhance learning, empowerment, and engagement? and (2) how can this issue be addressed to enhance value for money in capacity building and for the achievement of the local level development mandate? This is because how to design and deliver effective capacity building interventions in organisations are lacking (Leeman et al., 2015).
When participants are involved in the capacity building process, the programme would be tailor-made to suit their capacity gaps (Asian Development Bank, 2019). Having a tailor-made or customised programme could result in employee learning, empowerment, and engagement, which may culminate in local-level development. However, this conjecture is not empirically proven. Several studies have investigated components of capacity building such as training and development in various organisations. For instance, Otibine (2016) considered the impact of Department for International Development’s capacity building strategies on its performance in Kenya. Antwi and Analoui (2008) also focused on the issues of developing human resource capability in decentralised local administrations. Additionally, Odoom et al. (2014) studied human resource capacity needs in District Assemblies. It is observed that none of these focused on customised capacity building in MMDAs in Ghana. More so, there is none on its relationship with employee outcomes such as employee learning, employee empowerment, and employee engagement. This study, therefore, is intended to fill this gap.
Theoretical and conceptual review
Theoretical background
The optimal capacity and capacity threshold theories were used to support this paper. The theories have been applied to explain the processes and methods for conducting comprehensive capacity building for organisational success (Abrams, 2002). The theory of optimal capacity is concerned with the levels and dimensions of capacity growth required to meet pre-determined development goals. It also raises questions about the capacity levels that should be established to achieve optimal efficacy and minimise crowding out, even within locally produced capacity (Babu and Sengupta, 2006). The capacity threshold is similar to optimal capacity. According to the capacity threshold idea, there will be a specific degree of capacity in each given society or organisation (Abrams, 2002). Thus, existing capacities need to be assessed to determine the gap between current levels of capacity and the zone of proximal development in order to determine the appropriate point of entry where capacity should be built; determining the threshold required for optimal performance; and sequencing capacity building programmes to avoid duplication of effort and the wastage of resources (Babu and Sengupta, 2006; Chaiklin, 2003).
Customised capacity building
Capacity building is a management intervention used to develop and improve the abilities of people, organisations and society as a whole to enable them continually identify and manage their challenges optimally. It increases an organisation’s ability to fulfill its mission by promoting sound management, strong governance, and persistent rededication to achieve results. It has long been a necessary component for accomplishing development goals (UNDP, 2009). One of the success drivers that has been emphasised by the optimal capacity and capacity threshold theories is participation. Theorists aver that capacity building should follow an iterative and participatory process of engaging stakeholders (European Commission, 2007). Participation of stakeholders in the capacity building process leads to a customised capacity building programme.
Customised capacity building is an outcome of the endogenous process of building capacity. It is a paradigm shift that conforms to the ideological thoughts of the strength-based model which emphasises needs and assets assessment as well as highly effective and participatory training programmes which can satisfy the demands of the local client organisations – in terms of building up the capacity of their employees at different levels of the organisation (Chanturidze et al., 2015; Davies, 2009; UNDP, 2009). More so, when employees participate in the process of building capacities, the programmes become tailored to the work they do and lead to efficiency (Annan-Prah and Antwi, 2020). It is also essential for the development of sub-national governments in the decentralisation process (Olowu and Smoke, 1992). As Otibine (2016) asserts, capacity building strategies devoid of participation leave institutions with no learning. Ownership of the programme also becomes a challenge. Customised capacity building on the other hand is useful in enhancing learning, empowerment, engagement (Annan-Prah and Antwi, 2020; Noe, 2010; UNDP, 2009), and organisational effectiveness (Noe, 2010; DeSimone and Werner, 2012).
Hypotheses
Customised capacity building and employee empowerment
Employee empowerment is an effective technique for increasing the productivity of employees and aiding the optimal use of their individual capacity and group abilities to achieve organisational objectives (GanjiNia et al., 2013). It fosters creativity, quality of work-life, spirit of teamwork of employees and ultimately enhances organisational effectiveness as it promotes employees’ participation in decision making, good idea generation and execution (Hieu, 2020). Tanjeen (2013) defines employee empowerment as fostering a work environment where employees can participate in decision making, problem solving and goal setting processes.
Tanjeen (2013) adds that the essence of empowerment is to enhance employees’ responsibility and improve their quality of work. In the literature, training has been identified as a strategy to do so (Hieu, 2020). Training is a component of employee empowerment as it is a means through which employees get empowered (Azmee and Kassim, 2019; Hashemi and Ram, 2017). Also, Yamoah (2013) identified employee empowerment as an outcome of capacity building and Andoh et al. (2022b) established that training value influences the psychological empowerment of employees. More so, in a study by Voegtlin et al. (2015), they concluded that training participation affected empowerment. Further to their findings, the empowerment of individual employees following their training participation translated into collective empowerment. It is, therefore, hypothesised that:
Customised capacity building has an effect on employee empowerment.
Customised capacity building and employee engagement
Employee engagement shows the willingness of employees to stay with an organisation despite other opportunities and frequently going above and beyond normal expectations to help the organisation succeed (Hewitt as cited in Gulati, 2012). Sharmila (2013) views it as a positive attitude of employees towards their organisation and is key for organisational success. Lin and Lee (2017) add that it is about the extent of employees’ emphasis or recognition of their job. Employee engagement is, thus, a positive internal state that makes employees feel connected to their job and organisation.
Employee engagement is believed to be associated with a variety of employee and organisational outcomes and so makes it vital in the public sector because its maintenance at a high level in public organisations is challenging (Jin and McDonald, 2017). When the skills of employees become redundant, they become disengaged, but training gets them to be engaged (Sharmila, 2013). In the study of Azeem and Paracha (2013), they established that employee training programmes are positively related to employee engagement. Also, the model in the study of Sendawula et al. (2018) depicted that training significantly predicts employee engagement. From the foregoing, it is hypothesised that:
Customised capacity building has an effect on employee engagement.
Customised capacity building and learning
Employee learning is a process that helps people achieve their maximum potential by facilitating personal and professional development and reinforcing self-belief (Coleman, 2018). It results in the accumulation of knowledge within organisations, which is necessary for achieving and maintaining a competitive advantage. Learning is an important outcome of capacity building programmes and is synonymous with the assimilation of training content which is a prerequisite for training transfer (Andoh et al., 2022a; Andoh et al., 2022c; Blume et al., 2010; Ford et al., 2018). According to Azmee and Kassim (2019), learning activities are essential in organisations. This is because they influence training transfer and employee outcomes such as employee empowerment and engagement (Andoh et al., 2022b) which are needed by organisations to be successful. For instance, empowered employees are high in confidence, self-reliant, creative, and participate in decision-making (Hieu, 2020; Kumar and Kumar, 2017). These could result from participating in learning activities as Hashemi and Ram (2017) report that there is a correlation between organisational learning and employee empowerment. Likewise, Putri and Mangundjaya (2020) discovered that organisational learning has an effect on employee empowerment.
Moreover, Coleman (2018) revealed that in the literature, employee learning is a source of employee engagement. A similar assertion is made by Albrecht et al. (2015) regarding training and employee engagement. These assertions have been confirmed by Jain and Khurana (2017) that participation in capacity building programmes helps employees to learn, and consequently become engaged. This is largely because learning enables employees to generate vitality that subsequently leads to positive mental states toward their work (Lin and Lee, 2017). Thus, it is postulated that:
Customised capacity building has an effect on employee learning.
Employee learning has an effect on employee empowerment.
Employee learning has an effect on employee engagement.
Customised capacity building, employee empowerment, and engagement through employee learning
In synthesising the literature, it could be inferred that employee learning mediates customised capacity building, employee empowerment, and engagement. Participating in capacity building programmes maximises learning in organisations. This is affirmed by Otibine (2016) with the assertion that capacity building enhances learning. Thus, capacity building programmes enable individuals to learn and empower them to improve the provision of public goods and services. Also, employees learn through capacity building programmes and become engaged as training is a factor that contributes to employee engagement (Deloitte, 2015; Jain and Khurana, 2017). Arunmozhi (2013) in a study on employee engagement discovered that there were differences in engaged and disengaged employees in terms of employees who attended training and those who did not. This difference could be attributed to learning by the employees who attended the training. When employees learn new skills or get their redundant skills refreshed through training and development activities, they become engaged as work that was hitherto not meaningful becomes meaningful (Sharmila, 2013). As a result, the hypotheses set are:
The effect of customised capacity building on employee empowerment is mediated by employee learning.
The effect of customised capacity building on employee engagement is mediated by employee learning.
Research methods
Samples
Two hundred and eighty-two mechanised employees (full-time employees on the government payroll) from a population of 426 in three MMDAs that were purposively selected participated in this study. One hundred and fifty-three of the population were in a metropolitan assembly, 143 in a municipal assembly and 130 in a district assembly. Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) Table was used to determine a sample of 108, 103 and 97 respectively from the three assemblies. Based on the sampling frame from each assembly, a quota sampling method was adopted to include all categories of employees in the population and in the proportion in which they were, to achieve representativeness. Two hundred and eighty-one of the responses were used for the analysis after the data were cleaned. One hundred and four, representing 37.0 percent, were from the metropolitan assembly, 86 (30.6 percent) from the district assembly, and the remaining 91 (32.4 percent) were employees of the municipal assembly. The majority (149; 53 percent) of them were females. In terms of their educational level, 102 (36.3 percent) representing the most, were diploma certificate holders with the least number of respondents, 22 (7.8 percent) having master’s degrees.
Data collection
The survey method using a questionnaire was adopted in collecting the data for this study. To obtain access to the assemblies and the respondents, cooperation of the respondents and ethically collect the data as well as to control common method bias procedurally, an introductory letter was sent to the respective assemblies. Also, included in the questionnaire were statements of anonymity and confidentiality of the respondents in the introductory part of the questionnaire. In addition, the purpose of the data collection and instructions for filling out the questionnaire were indicated (Chang et al., 2010; Cohen et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2012; Saunders et al., 2012).
Measures used for the four variables were obtained from the literature (see Appendix by using the link https://bit.ly/appendix_measures). A four-point Likert-type scale was used. The four-point scale was used to prevent the respondents from selecting the midpoints not because it was the best response but out of convenience. This could be a disadvantage to respondents who truly wanted to choose the midpoint (Krosnick and Presser, 2009). However, according to O’Muircheartaigh et al. (1999), the selection of midpoints is usually rampant among respondents not interested in a study, which was likely not the case in this study.
Analyses
The data processing was done using the SPSS and PLS-SEM statistical software. The sample characteristics were analysed in frequencies and percentages. A structural equation model was used to test the hypotheses. A structural equation model was used because according to Hair et al. (2011), it is now the standard in management research, especially in studies involving cause-effect relationships. More so, even though it is similar to regression analysis, it has greater statistical power, is able to deal with measurement error, and combines confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis making it more powerful (Beran and Violata, 2010; Fan et al., 2016).
The measurement model was first assessed using the outer loadings of the indicators, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, average variance extracted (AVE), Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT), and variance inflation factors (VIF) to ascertain its reliability, validity, and multicollinearity. This was followed by the structural model assessment where a bootstrapping sequence of 5000 samples was performed to determine the significance of the paths. Also, the effect size (f2), coefficient of determination (R2), and predictive relevance (Q2) of the variables were determined.
Results
Measurement model assessment
To begin with the measurement model assessment, the outer loadings, construct reliability, and convergent validity were examined and displayed in Table 1. The outer loadings were first examined. Table 1 shows that all but two of the indicators had loadings of >0.708. The two indicators, EMLE 2 and EMP7 with 0.682 and 0.670 loadings respectively were maintained because their presence did not affect the validity and reliability of the model. More so, they were statistically significant (**p<0.05) as revealed by the full bootstrapping sequence performed (Benitez et al., 2020; Hair et al., 2019).
To assess the internal consistency of the variables, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were used. Ranging between 0.883-0.934 and 0.906-0.950, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability respectively were above the threshold of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2011). This is an indication of the reliability of the model. Furthermore, the AVE was assessed for the convergent validity of the model. With the AVE values of each of the variables being >0.5, convergent validity was also achieved (Benitez et al., 2020; Hair et al., 2019).
To determine the discriminant validity of the model, the HTMT Ratio criteria was used and is presented in Table 2. In going by the liberal threshold of <0.9 recommended by Henseler et al. (2015) and Hair et al. (2019), it can be observed from the table that discriminant validity was achieved.
In addition, to ensure that the model had no common method bias, multicollinearity was examined using VIF. The results of which have been displayed in Table 3. With values less than 3.3, the model had no multicollinearity issues (Kock, 2015).
Structural model assessment
Subsequent to the measurement model assessment was the structural model assessment in which the coefficient of determination – explanatory power (R2), predictive accuracy (Q2), effect size (f2), and the statistical significance of the path coefficients (beta) were examined as the key criteria in the structural model assessment (Hair et al., 2017). In assessing R2, Hair et al. (2019) posit that values of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 imply weak, moderate, and substantial explanatory power. From Table 4, the explanatory power of Employee Learning is weak (0.032) whereas that of Employee Empowerment (0.670) and Employee Engagement (0.407) are moderate. In effect, the model explained 3.2 percent, 67.0 percent, and 40.7 percent of the variance in Employee Learning, Employee Empowerment, and Employee Engagement respectively. This is further confirmed in Figure 1.
In respect of the Q2 of a model, Hair et al. (2017) indicate that a value >0 shows predictive relevance. However, the magnitudes are determined as follows; >0 – small predictive relevance, >0.25 – medium predictive relevance, and >0.50 – large predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2019). It can be observed from Table 4 that Employee Learning and Employee Engagement had weak predictive relevance while Employee Empowerment had medium predictive relevance. Most importantly, however, the model had predictive relevance.
Included in Table 5 is f2, which is an indication of the contribution of the exogenous variables to the endogenous variables. According to Benitez et al. (2020), Customised Capacity Building Programme had a large effect on Employee Empowerment (1.879) and Employee Engagement (0.489) but a weak effect on Employee Learning (0.033). Also, Employee Learning had a weak effect on Employee Empowerment (0.020) and Employee Engagement (0.098).
The results of the direct paths are also shown in Table 5. Customised Capacity Building Programme had a significant positive effect on Employee Empowerment (β=0.800; t=22.418**; p=0.000); Employee Engagement (β=0.547; t=18.488**; p=0.000); and Employee Learning (β=0.178; t=5.057**; p=0.000). As a result of these, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 could not be rejected. Similarly, Employee Learning had a significant positive effect on Employee Empowerment (β=0.083; t=3.059**; p=0.002) and Employee Engagement (β=0.245; t=4.461**; p=0.000). Thus, hypotheses 4 and 5 could also not be rejected.
Table 6 is a presentation of the results of the mediation analysis. It is observed that the specific indirect effect of Customised CBP -> Employee Learning -> Employee Empowerment was statistically significant (β=0.015; t=2.857**; p=0.004). Again, the specific indirect effect of Customised CBP -> Employee Learning -> Employee Engagement was statistically significant (β=0.044; t=4.039**; p=0.000). Since the direct paths Customised CBP -> Employee Engagement and Customised CBP -> Employee Empowerment were statistically significant and positive, Employee Learning had a complementary partial mediating effect on both paths according to Nitzl et al. (2016). Thus, hypotheses 6 and 7 could not be rejected.
Discussion and conclusion
In this study that examined the effect of customised capacity building on employee outcomes (empowerment, engagement, and learning) as well as the mediating role of employee learning in the effect customised capacity building has on employee empowerment and employee engagement, all the hypotheses formulated could not be rejected. Thus, customised capacity building had an effect on 1) employee empowerment; 2) employee engagement; and 3) employee learning. Also, employee learning had an effect on employee empowerment and employee engagement. Lastly, the effect of 1) customised capacity building on employee empowerment; and 2) customised capacity building on employee engagement were both partially mediated by employee learning. The foregoing shows that customised capacity building is a predictor of employee empowerment (Voegtlin et al., 2015; Yamoah, 2013), employee engagement (Azeem and Paracha, 2013), and employee learning (Meier, 2003). Similarly, it is evident that employee learning predicts employee empowerment and employee engagement (Coleman, 2018; Putri and Mangundjaya, 2020; Hashemi and Ram, 2017). Furthermore, employee learning affects the effect of customised capacity building on employee empowerment and employee engagement (Jain and Khurana, 2017).
It has been shown that when a capacity building programme is customised, the learning of employees occurs. This is the goal of capacity building programmes (Meier, 2003). Learning is a prerequisite in enhancing organisations through the realisation of the potential of the participants of customised capacity building programmes and subsequently, transferring training to meet the development objectives of assemblies (Azmee and Kassim, 2019; Blume et al., 2010; Coleman, 2018; Ford et al., 2018). This is an indication that to improve employee learning, employee empowerment, and employee engagement, capacity building should be customised. Also, learning should be encouraged and facilitated due to its role in the effect of customised capacity building on employee empowerment and employee engagement.
This study shows that MMDAs should utilise not just capacity building but customised capacity building programmes because of its involvement factor that gets employees to learn, be engaged, and be empowered. More so, employee learning should be encouraged in MMDAs because this study has revealed that it is a catalyst for employee empowerment and employee engagement since it facilitates them when it comes to customised capacity building.
Implications
Theoretically, this study adds to the optimal and capacity threshold theory by providing support for it. When capacity building efforts in organisations are customised, the participants of the customised capacity building programmes become equipped with the capacities they require to function within their areas of operation. This is done by assessing the existing capacities to determine the gap between current levels of capacity and the zone of proximal development to determine the appropriate point of entry where capacity should be built. Among the capacities they become equipped with are the knowledge and skills (obtained through employee learning), becoming engaged, and empowered. These are crucial in delivering the optimal performance needed by MMDAs to overcome the development challenges of their respective assemblies (Abrams, 2002; Babu and Sengupta, 2006; Chaiklin, 2003).
Empirically, the effect of both customised capacity building and employee learning on employee empowerment and employee engagement is critical for MMDAs. Following their participation in customised capacity building programmes, employees in MMDAs would get to find meaning in their work and become engaged as well as feel empowered (Arunmozhi, 2013; Jain and Khurana, 2017; Putri and Mangundjaya, 2020; Sharmila, 2013). Empowered and engaged employees get to be happy, focused, and dedicated to their work in the assemblies, which would inure to the assemblies in meeting their development objectives.
Practically, these findings imply that in overcoming the development challenges and meeting the development agenda of MMDAs (Babu and Sengupta, 2006), the capacities of the employees of MMDAs must be developed. In doing so, the capacity building programme needs to be customised. That is, a capacity building programme which is developed from within the local organisations based on the strengths and needs of the employees specifically and their assemblies in general (Davies, 2009; UNDP, 2009) as this makes the capacity building efforts contextualised. In this, donors, consultants, and other experts outside of the organisation only need to facilitate the customisation of the capacity building programme using participatory and co-designing approaches so that the internal people take ownership (Annan-Prah and Antwi, 2020; Chanturidze et al., 2015; Otoo et al., 2009).
Figures
Outer loadings, construct reliability, and convergent validity
| Variable | Outer loading | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customized Capacity Building Programme | 0.934 | 0.950 | 0.793 | |
| CCBP1 | 0.854** | |||
| CCBP6 | 0.816** | |||
| CCBP8 | 0.883** | |||
| CCBP9 | 0.962** | |||
| CCBP10 | 0.931** | |||
| Employee Engagement | 0.887 | 0.911 | 0.633 | |
| EMEN1 | 0.877** | |||
| EMEN2 | 0.887** | |||
| EMEN3 | 0.744** | |||
| EMEN4 | 0.776** | |||
| EMEN5 | 0.724** | |||
| EMEN10 | 0.749** | |||
| Employee Learning | 0.883 | 0.906 | 0.619 | |
| EMLE2 | 0.682** | |||
| EMLE3 | 0.836** | |||
| EMLE4 | 0.814** | |||
| EMLE5 | 0.795** | |||
| EMLE6 | 0.871** | |||
| EMLE7 | 0.708** | |||
| Employee Empowerment | 0.924 | 0.939 | 0.690 | |
| EMP1 | 0.866** | |||
| EMP11 | 0.838** | |||
| EMP12 | 0.861** | |||
| EMP13 | 0.817** | |||
| EMP7 | 0.670** | |||
| EMP9 | 0.866** | |||
| EMP10 | 0.877** | |||
**p<0.05
Source: By authors
Discriminant validity (HTMT Ratio)
| Variable | Customised CBP | Employee Empowerment | Employee Engagement | Employee Learning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customised CBP | ||||
| Employee Empowerment | 0.853 | |||
| Employee Engagement | 0.560 | 0.611 | ||
| Employee Learning | 0.165 | 0.212 | 0.367 |
Source: By authors
Collinearity statistics (VIF)
| Variable | Employee Empowerment | Employee Engagement | Employee Learning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Customised CBP | 1.033 | 1.033 | 1.000 |
| Employee Learning | 1.033 | 1.033 |
Source: By authors
Coefficient of determination (R2) and predictive accuracy (Q2)
| Variable | R2 | Q2 |
|---|---|---|
| Employee Empowerment | 0.670 | 0.443 |
| Employee Engagement | 0.407 | 0.214 |
| Employee Learning | 0.032 | 0.011 |
Source: By authors
Hypotheses results (Direct effects)
| Direct path | Beta | T Statistics | f2 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Customised CBP -> Employee Empowerment | 0.800 | 22.418** | 1.879 | 0.000 |
| H2: Customised CBP -> Employee Engagement | 0.547 | 18.488** | 0.489 | 0.000 |
| H3: Customised CBP -> Employee Learning | 0.178 | 5.057** | 0.033 | 0.000 |
| H4: Employee Learning -> Employee Empowerment | 0.083 | 3.059** | 0.020 | 0.002 |
| H5: Employee Learning -> Employee Engagement | 0.245 | 4.461** | 0.098 | 0.000 |
**p<0.05
Source: By authors
References
Abrams, M. (2002), “A manual for policy analysts, GoJ-CIDA capacity building project”, available at: https://cabinet.gov.jm/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MANUAL-Policy-Analysts_Martin-Abrams.pdf (accessed 29 April 2022).
Acharya, K.K. and Scott, J. (2022), “A study of the capabilities and limitations of local governments in providing community services in Nepal”, Public Administration and Policy, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 64-77.
Ada East District Assembly Audit Unit (2016), “Fourth quarter audit report on human resource management performance and expenditures in violation of laws”, available at: http://aeda.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/FOURTH-QUARTER-2015.pdf (accessed 9 February 2022).
Albrecht, S.L., Bakker, A.B., Gruman, J.A., Macey, W.H. and Saks, A.M. (2015), “Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: an integrated approach”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-35.
Andoh, R.P.K., Annan-Prah, E.C., Boampong, G.N., Jehu-Appiah, J., Korsah, A.M. and Owusu, E.A. (2022c), “Examination of the influence of transfer opportunity, assimilation of training content and motivation to transfer in the training transfer process”, European Journal of Training and Development, published online, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1108/EJTD-09-2022-0100.
Andoh, R.P.K., Mensah, D.Y. and Owusu, E.A. (2022a), “Trainers’ pedagogical competencies and trainees’ assimilation of training content”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 133-149.
Andoh, R.P.K., Owusu, E.A., Annan-Prah, E.C. and Boampong, G.N. (2022b), “Training value, internal states and training transfer: examining the web of relationships”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 674-691.
Annan-Prah, E.C. and Andoh, R.P.K. (2023), “Administrative capacity and local level development in metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies in Ghana: mediating role of resource capacity”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, published online, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-07-2022-0168.
Annan-Prah, E.C. and Antwi, K.B. (2020), “Interrogating co-designing capacity building approaches for organisational development: the case of Komenda/Edina/Eguafo/Abirem Municipal Assembly of Central Region, Ghana”, International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-14.
Antwi, K.B. and Analoui, F. (2008), “Challenges in building the capacity of human resource development in decentralized local governments: evidence from Ghana”, Management Research News, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 504-517.
Arunmozhi, T. (2013), “A study on employee engagement and involvement practices in ICICI Bank Ltd., Chennai”, Unpublished doctoral thesis, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapatti-Tamil Nadu.
Asian Development Bank (2019), “India: multistate and multisector project management capacity building”, available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/42515/42515-012-tcr-en.pdf (accessed 2 May 2022).
Awortwi, N. (2011), “An unbreakable path? A comparative study of decentralisation and local government development in Ghana and Uganda”, International Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 347-377.
Azeem, M.F. and Paracha, A.T. (2013), “Connecting training and development with employee engagement: how does it matter?”, World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 696-703.
Azmee, N.N. and Kassim, N.A. (2019), “Employee empowerment, learning culture and technology in a research-based organization”, International Journal for Infonomics, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 1978-1883.
Babu, S.C. and Sengupta, D. (2006), “Capacity development as a research domain: frameworks, approaches, and analytics”, ISNAR Discussion Paper 9, available at: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/56122 (accessed 20 April 2022).
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A. and Schuberth, F. (2020), “How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research”, Information and Management, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Beran, T.N. and Violata, C. (2010), “Structural equation modelling in medical research: a primer”, BMC Research Notes, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Blume, B.D., Ford, J.K., Baldwin, T.T. and Huang, J.L. (2010), “Transfer of training: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1065-1105.
Chaiklin, S. (2003), “The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction”, Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V.S. and Miller, S.M. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 39-64.
Chang, S., Witteloostuijn, A.V. and Eden, L. (2010), “From the editors: common method variance in international business research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 178-184.
Chanturidze, T., Adams, O., Tokezhanov, B., Naylor, M. and Richardson, E. (2015), “Building policy-making capacity in the Ministry of Health: the Kazakhstan experience”, Human Resources for Health, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1-9.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007), Research Methods in Education (6th ed.), Routledge, New York, NY.
Coleman, C.A. (2018), “Measuring the impact of employee learning at work: a review of the practices of two companies in Ghana”, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Organization Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 1-6.
Davies, M. (2009), “DFID social transfers evaluation summary report”, working paper 31, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67727/dfid-soc-trsfrs-summ-rpt-wp-31.pdf (accessed 2 May 2022).
Deloitte (2015), “Becoming irresistible: a new model for employee engagement”, available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/deloitte-review/issue-16/employee-engagement-strategies.html (accessed 18 April 2022).
DeSimone, R.L. and Werner, J.M. (2012), Human Resource Development (6th ed.), South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, Ohio.
European Commission (2007), Institutional Assessment and Capacity Development: Why, What and How?, European Commission Publications Office, Luxembourg.
Fan, Y., Chen, J., Shirkey, G., John, R., Wu, S.R., Park, H. and Shao, C. (2016), “Applications of structural equation modeling (SEM) in ecological studies: an updated review”, Ecological Processes, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Ford, J.K., Baldwin, T.T. and Prasad, J. (2018), “Transfer of training: the known and the unknown”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 201-225.
GanjiNia, H., Gilaninia, S. and Sharami, R.P.M. (2013), “Overview of employees empowerment in organizations”, Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 38-43.
Gulati, G.K. (2012), “Employee engagement: key to success for contemporary organisations”, Gian Jyoti E-Journal, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 62-77.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 123-136.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Hashemi, S.H. and Ram, L.S.G. (2017), “Investigating the relationship between organizational learning and empowerment of the employees of the Rafah Bank in the office of branch affairs in District 1 of Tehran”, Revista QUID, Special Issue No. 1, pp. 2394-2399.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criteria for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hieu, V.M. (2020), “Employee empowerment and empowering leadership: a literature review”, Technium, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 20-28.
Jain, S. and Khurana, N. (2017), “Enhancing employee engagement through training and development”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Jin, M.H. and McDonald, B. (2017), “Understanding employee engagement in the public sector: the role of immediate supervisor, perceived organizational support, and learning Opportunities”, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 881-897.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”, International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970), “Determining sample size for research activities”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 607-610.
Krosnick, J.A. and Presser, S. (2009), “Question and questionnaire design”, Wright, J.D. and Marsden, P.V. (Eds.), Handbook of Survey Research (2nd ed.), Elsevier, San Diego, CA, pp. 263-314.
Kumar, P.J. and Kumar, A.A. (2017), “Employee empowerment-an empirical study”, Global Journal of Management and Business Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 58-64.
Leeman, J., Calancie, L., Hartman, M.A., Escoffery, C.T., Herrmann, A.K., Tague, L.E. and Samuel-Hodge, C. (2015), “What strategies are used to build practitioners’ capacity to implement community-based interventions and are they effective? A systematic review”, Implementation Science, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Lin, H. and Lee, Y. (2017), “A study of the influence of organizational learning on employees’ innovative behavior and work engagement by a cross-level examination”, EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 3463-3478.
Meier, D. (2003), In Schools We Trust: Creating Communities of Learning in an Era of Testing and Standardization, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Nitzl, C., Roldan, J.L. and Cepeda, G. (2016), “Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modelling: helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 9, pp. 1849-1864.
Noe, R.A. (2010), Employee Training and Development (5th ed.), Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
O’Muircheartaigh, C., Krosnick, J.A. and Helic, A. (1999), “Middle alternatives, acquiescence, and the quality of questionnaire data”, paper at the Fifty-fourth Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, 13-16 May, St. Pete Beach, FL.
Odoom, D., Kyeremeh, C. and Opoku, E. (2014), “Human resource capacity needs at the district assemblies: a study at Assin South District Assembly in Ghana”, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 177-188.
Olowu, D. and Smoke, P. (1992), “Determinants of success in African local governments: an overview”, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005), “Teachers matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers”, available at: https://www.oecd.org/education/school/34990905.pdf (accessed 12 May 2022).
Otibine, I.L. (2016), “Effects of capacity development strategies on the performance of the Department for International Development in Kenya”, Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi.
Otoo, S., Agapitova, N. and Behrens, J. (2009), “The capacity development results framework: a strategic and results-oriented approach to learning for capacity development”, The World Bank, available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/23037/The0capacity0d0capacity0development.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 11 May 2022).
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 539-569.
Putri, D.N. and Mangundjaya, W.L. (2020), “Examining the effects of organizational learning on workforce agility through psychological empowerment”, Open Journal for Psychological Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 85-94.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012), Research Methods for Business Students (6th ed.), Pearson, London.
Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Sendawula, K., Kimuli, S.N., Bananuka, J. and Muganga, G.N. (2018), “Training, employee engagement and employee performance: evidence from Uganda’s health sector”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Sharmila, J.J.V. (2013), “Employee engagement: an approach to organisational excellence”, International Journal of Social Science and Interdisciplinary Research, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 111-117.
Tanjeen, E. (2013), “Employee empowerment: a critical review”, Dhaka University Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
UNDP (2009), Frequently Asked Questions: The UNDP Approach to Supporting Capacity Development, United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY.
UNICEF and CDD Ghana (2015), “Ghana’s district league table 2015 report: strengthening social accountability to the Nation’s progress”, available at: https://www.cddgh.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2015_DISTRICT_LEAGUE_TABLE_REPORT.pdf (accessed 12 June 2016).
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) (2015), Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2015: Year-end Update, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
Voegtlin, C., Boehm, S.A. and Bruch, H. (2015), “How to empower employees: using training to enhance work units’ collective empowerment”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 354-373.
Yamoah, E.E. (2013), “Employee training and empowerment: a conceptual model for achieving high job performance”, Journal of Education and Practice, Vol. 4 No. 13, pp. 27-30.
Zakaria, H.B. (2013), “Looking back, moving forward: towards improving local governments’ performance in Ghana”, Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, Vol. 13 No. 14, pp. 90-108.
Corresponding author
About the authors
Elizabeth C. Annan-Prah, PhD in Development Studies, MBA in HRM and BA (Secretaryship) from the University of Cape Coast, Ghana, is a Senior Lecturer in human resource management in the School of Business, Department of Human Resource Management, University of Cape Coast, Ghana. She has authored two books and a number of refereed journal articles to her credit. She is an experienced administrator, lecturer and consultant in training and development. She is also a reviewer for some national and international journals.
Raphael P.K. Andoh holds a Master of Arts degree in Governance and Sustainable Development and is pursuing a Master of Commerce in Human Resource Management at the Department of Human Resource Management, University of Cape Coast (UCC), Ghana. He works as an administrator in UCC. His research interests are human resource development with focus on people with disabilities, workplace learning and career development. He has initiated the process of founding the Human Capabilities Development Research Group.