Employee Empowerment in Remote Work in Case of Lithuanian Companies

Abstract

This paper analyses the empowerment of remotely working employees in the case of Lithuanian companies. Research methods were scientific literature review and a quantitative method of questionnaire survey. It revealed that an employee is psychologically empowered when working remotely when they feel the meaning, enthusiasm, and competency related to the job, while structural empowerment manifests itself as the opportunities, information, resources, and support that exist in the organization and are available to the employee. The manifestation of remote work empowerment is sufficient in all groups of both psychological and structural empowerment dimensions. The results for the fully and hybrid remotely working employees’ empowerment differed little. The study found that all the dimensions of remote work are interlinked, so that only when they are sufficiently fulfilled in corpore, could a higher manifestation of employee empowerment be achieved.

1. Introduction

It is crucial for sustainable organisational design that their employees are involved in their activities, make decisions about their work on their own, solve problems, and make suggestions for improvement and are willing to contribute to their implementation. In other words, empowered employees are one of the key features of a modernly managed company in a competitive environment [1]. Research shows that employees who feel empowered at work are more productive, more satisfied with their work, and more involved in organisational activities [2]. It is observed that organisations that enable their employees to have more opportunities get the maximum benefit from them. This state of employees provokes innovation and increases their commitment to having a positive impact on productivity [3,4].

Although employee empowerment has always been relevant in the traditional, on-site work form [5], the new challenges to further empower employees became apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. With the introduction of remote work, many organisations had no choice but to empower their employees, as it was not possible to manage them in all situations remotely. Employees being able to work remotely during a pandemic allowed many of those organisations to survive that difficult period. Therefore, even after the end of a pandemic, many of those organisations and their employees are reluctant to resign remote work. Off-office work, which is challenging, but also provides valuable and necessary flexibility, is projected to become an increasingly important part of the employment relationship in the future [6]. Thus, it is important for organisations, seeking to have empowered employees, to assess the specifics of remote work, its advantages and disadvantages, and the challenges of increasing employee empowerment in remote work contexts.

Most of the research is designed to examine the empowerment of employees, its dimensions, and its significance for the organisation [4,7,8,9,10]. The peculiarities of the organisation of remote work [11] and its impact on the work-life balance of employees [12] are also examined, as well as the impact of remote work on employee motivation and job satisfaction [13], but there is a lack of research on the challenges involved in empowering remotely working employees and on measures to increase employee empowerment. The study contributes to the literature search for effective forms and assumptions of employee empowerment in the context of remote work.

Thus, the research object is the empowerment of employees working remotely in the case of Lithuanian companies. The research aim is to analyse the empowerment of remotely working employees, encompassing both psychological and structural empowerment, in companies.

Research method: quantitative method of questionnaire survey, developed by authors.

2. Theoretical Background

Traditional hierarchical organisations no longer meet the needs for flexibility and quality and need to change. An organisation will succeed if all members of the organisation are involved in its activities [14]. Employee empowerment is defined as the level of autonomy and responsibility delegated to employees to make decisions about their work without the need for prior approval from their supervisor [1,15]. Due to the different approaches to empowerment, the first stage of the development of the concept is related to the study of structural employee empowerment, focusing on a set of organisational policies and practices initiated by management with the goal of addressing conditions to share power and authority with employees [16]. Here, employees’ behaviour at work is not determined by their individual personal characteristics, but by the work environment and situations at work [17]. Meanwhile, in the next stage, the psychological perspective of employee empowerment dominates, focusing on a psychological state encompassing the employee’s perceptions [9,16]. The dimensions of structural empowerment are singled out: access to opportunities, information, resources, support, and formal and informal power [8,17]. However, recent literature is dominated by the psychological empowerment view. There are two aspects to it. The first is how the employee perceives his or her ability to perform his or her work and tasks, as well as the extent to which he or she has competencies, knowledge, experience, and skills. The second aspect is in giving direction to mastery, encouraging, action, and effort [18]. According to Spreitzer [7], psychological empowerment has four dimensions, each assessed from the perspective of the individual worker: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. According to some authors, the concept of self-determination corresponds to the dimension of psychological empowerment—confidence in competence [7]. However, considering the unique cultural, social, and economic context of Lithuania, the model of psychological empowerment and dimensions developed and approved by Bagdžiūnienė and Tvarijonavičius [18] is chosen for further research. According to this research [18], the statistically significant dimensions of psychological employee’s empowerment are: meaning—as an employee’s belief in what (s)he is doing at work, perception of the meaning of work, and its significance in relation to personal long-term goals; enthusiasm—an employee’s enthusiastic attitude to work and the desire to make additional efforts; decision-making—the employee’s perception that (s)he can make decisions in the work environment and influence decisions; autonomy—the employee’s perception that (s)he can make decisions independently, set work goals, and choose how to achieve them; and confidence in competence—the employee’s perception that (s)he is competent to do his job properly, can overcome difficulties and achieve the required results. According to Spreitzer [7], the level of employee empowerment is limited in the absence of at least one of the dimensions or if the degree of employee perception is low for any of them.

Researchers use different terms for the concept of remote work (telework, e-work, telecommuting, virtual work, or home-based work), but the concept differs fundamentally depending on whether the employee works from home or elsewhere [19]. However, many researchers point to several common characteristics of remote work: (1) remote work can only be applied to activities that are location-independent, i.e., the work does not have to be performed at the employer’s premises; (2) information or communication means are used to perform the work; and (3) remote employees determine their working hours in accordance with national regulations, collective agreements, and organisational rules [20].

As well, at present, hybrid remote work is increasingly entering the labour market [21] as a work model that combines on-site work with remote work. Since working at this employer’s workplace is combined with work from home or another workplace that is convenient for the employee, there is reason to consider such work as one of the forms of remote work.

Scientific research provides fragmentary evidence on the expression of different dimensions of employee empowerment while working remotely. In psychological empowerment dimensions, it was found that psychological safety while working remotely moderated the relationship between goal-oriented self-leadership strategies and meaningfulness of work [22], or that remote workers are significantly more enthusiastic about their jobs [23], as well as that if remote communication and information-sharing are smooth, every employee can participate in cross-functional decision-making for effective collaboration [24]. In addition, the value of competencies regarding the empowerment of virtual teams on their effectiveness is evident [25], as well as the moderating role of organisational policy and top management support from a structural point of view in remote work, which enhances organisational performance [26]. On the part of structural empowerment dimensions, perhaps the main advantage of remote work is the increased autonomy and flexibility of the work schedule. This may be associated with a higher level of job independence, as remotely working employees have more control over working time and place and more freedom to do their job as they wish [27]. At the same time, they have a responsibility to use available equipment and resources to accomplish the task [20].

It is more difficult to control the remote work performed by an employee and to measure employee productivity. For organisations and managers that prioritise micromanagement and measure employee achievement based on how many hours an employee is visible at work [28], remote work is a difficult challenge to overcome. As a result, organisations seeking to move to remote work must foster an organisational trust-based culture for employees [29], empowering them to make their own decisions and measuring performance according to specifically agreed performance. It is also necessary to consider not only the employees who are best suited for this, but also managers who can and want to work remotely. Employees benefit from empowering leadership when they work from home [30]. When working remotely, a leader’s communication and his or her personal qualities have the greatest impact on employee empowerment [31]. According to Micko [32], leaders need to use all possible tools to communicate with employees and customers, to inform them about the current situation, to explain why one or another decision was made, and what will be the next step. The remote work organisation enabled by ICT calls into question the effectiveness of traditional organisational control mechanisms based on direct supervision [33]. Remote work has led to a shift from direct supervision to management that emphasises relationships based on trust and the empowerment and self-control of remote workers. Instead of strict monitoring, managers often sought to create a “supportive environment” to empower people [34].All this may lead to the assumption about links between employee empowerment and remote work setting, therefore, after review of scientific literature on employee empowerment in remote work, the subsequent research hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

The manifestation of the empowerment of remote employees in the dimensions of psychological and structural empowerment in companies is sufficient. This hypothesis is based on the assumption in the scientific literature that the nature and conditions of remote work presuppose the empowerment of remotely working employees.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

The empowerment of fully remotely working employees is higher than in the case of hybrid remotely working employees in companies. Under the hypothesis, fully remotely working employees would have a higher expression of empowerment factors than hybrid remote work representatives having some contact with company executives, colleagues, or partners.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

The different dimensions of psychological and structural empowerment are related to each other. The literature states that sufficient manifestation of different dimensions in corpore ensures employee empowerment by working remotely due to the synergy of both dimensional groups.

In order to investigate employee empowerment in remote work, quantitative research is carried out. The statements are examined in the case of—Lithuanian companies.

3. Research Method

In order to determine the challenges faced by organisations in remote employee empowerment, an empirical quantitative study was chosen to conduct an anonymous survey.

The questionnaire, elaborated by the authors, consists of statements on employee empowerment in remote work settings and additional information on demography is collected. The questionnaire contains a question of choice, which of the three mentioned forms of work organisation—on-site, remote, or hybrid remote—an individual is employed as in the company. Depending on the research aim, it was stated that further filling in the questionnaire is not allowed in the case of on-site work.

The statements are formulated according to the dimensions of psychological and structural empowerment approaches, reviewed in a section of theoretical background: meaning (“I know that my work makes a significant contribution to the company’s results”, “My work helps me achieve my long-term goals”), enthusiasm (“I feel the desire and enthusiasm to try harder, to contribute extra to the work”), decision making (“I know I can change a lot in the company”, “I would like to be given more authority”, “I feel more responsible”, “I have the opportunity to help my manager make decisions”), autonomy (“I can control how I do my job”, “I manage my working time“, “I get too involved in work and have less free time”), confidence in competence (“I feel that I am competent enough to do my job properly”), structural empowering (“I have all the necessary technological and IT tools to do the job properly”, “I get enough information to do the job”, “I have more training”, “There are enough ways to maintain working relationships with colleagues”, “The company holds meetings with employees to find ways to improve performance”), and leader’s empowering behaviour (“I feel the support of my manager and colleagues”, “My manager is an example to other employees”, “With my supervisor, I examine the general trends of the country/world/area and the experience of other areas”, “Managerial control is not intrusive and exaggerated”). An additional statement on employees’ willingness to return to work on-site was offered to reveal their role in the decision to work remotely. Socio-demographic statements sought to find out the age of the respondents, their position in the organisation, their education, length of service in the organisation, and the size and field of activity of the organisation in which they work.

For all dimensional scales, a high Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found, and the overall internal consistency of the questionnaire was good (0.921), indicating that it was suitable for the study.

An interval of 5-point Likert scale was used, asking to choose an appropriate answer from 1 to 5, where 1 means “Completely Disagree”, 2—“Partially Disagree”, 3—“Neutral Opinion”, 4—“Partially agree” and 5—“Completely agree”. The statements made are both positive and negative. The research was organised in accordance with ethical principles. Requests to participate in the survey were sent to the official e-mails of the companies that organise the work remotely, as well as to their staff responsible for human resources. Data was collected from multiple sources and at multiple times (during March 2022) to minimise common-method variance [35].

The data obtained during the study were calculated using IBM SPSS 20 software. Descriptive data statistics—absolute (n) and frequencies (%) were used to evaluate the distribution of the analysed characteristics in the selected sample. The mean (M), standard deviation (SN), and median (MD) were used to describe the interval scale variables. The averages of means are calculated for each dimension, evaluating it on a scale where 1 stands for poor level of manifestation, 2—insufficient, 3—sufficient, 4—good, and 5—excellent accordingly.

Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests were calculated to check the normality of the scale data. The scale distributions are significantly different from the normal distribution, so there is a need to use nonparametric criteria (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal Valium H) to compare the mean values and a nonparametric Spearman correlation coefficient (r) to determine the significance of the relationships: if 0 < |r| ≤ 0.3, values are weakly dependent, if 0.3 < |r| ≤ 0.7—moderately dependent, and if 0.7 < |r| ≤ 1—strongly dependent. The correlation coefficient was considered positive when one value increases and another increases, and negative when one value increases, the other decreases. When the significance level was p < 0.05, the difference in indications between the dimensions was considered statistically significant.

The participants of the quantitative study are employees of Lithuanian companies who have worked remotely for at least part of their working time. Official statistics on the number of remotely working employees in Lithuania could not be found, so this study was based on the [4] report. According to the report, during the COVID-19 pandemic in Lithuania, 40% of employees worked at the employer’s premises. As a result, 60% of employees were working remotely, calculating the sample to be surveyed of all employees in Lithuania. According to the data of the Department of Statistics, there was a population of 1,427,132 in Lithuania in 2020. Therefore, the estimated number of members of the surveyed population is 856,279. The formula of Paniotto was used to calculate the sample (error—7%, probability—95%). The sample size calculated is 204. A total of 210 employees entered the questionnaire, of which 206 were working remotely or hybrid remotely, so it can be concluded that the data obtained are valid.

A total of 78% of respondents worked in a hybrid way, and 22% worked fully remotely. A total of 48% were 25–35 years old. The other ages were 31%—36–45 years, 11%—over 45 years, and 10%—up to 25 years. By position, 85% worked in a non-managerial job. According to education, 52% had a university degree, 43%—higher non-university, etc.—vocational or secondary. According to the tenure of service, most respondents worked for 5–10 years in the current organisation (37%) and then 2–5 years (31%). According to the size of the organisation, 48% represented medium-sized organisations, 28%—large, and 24%—small. A total of 64% worked in services, 17% in production, and 9% in trade.

4. Results

Employee empowerment dimensions when working remotely in Lithuanian companies were estimated. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in the Mann–Whitney U test, which showed that confidence in competence and reluctance to return to the office were rated significantly higher only by those working remotely compared to those working in a hybrid way (see

Table 1. Comparison of estimates of the dimensions of empowerment of remotely working employees according to the work organisation method.

Forms	Meaning		Enthusiasm	Decision Making	Autonomy	Confidence in Competence	Structural Empowering	Leader’s Empowering Behaviour	No Need to Go Back to the Office
Fully remote work	M	3.64	3.46	3.19	3.11	4.26 *	3.35	3.46	3.78 *
	SN	1.37	1.50	0.98	0.88	1.22	0.92	0.95	1.56
	MD.	4.00	4.00	3.40	3.33	5.00	3.33	3.40	4.50
Hybrid remote work	M	3.72	3.34	3.24	3.10	4.05	3.40	3.49	3.15
	SN	1.27	1.35	0.96	0.93	1.10	0.95	0.92	1.57
	MD.	4.00	4.00	3.20	3.33	4.00	3.39	3.60	4.00
Mann-Whitney U test	U	3648	3462	3619	3638	2934	3560	3520	2784
	p	0.926	0.524	0.863	0.904	0.023	0.736	0.652	0.009

Notes: Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were highlighted. U—Mann–Whitney U test, p—statistical significance of the test. * p < 0.05 compared to hybrid remotely working employees.

). Meanwhile, the evaluations of other dimensions of empowerment did not differ statistically significantly (p > 0.05). Fully remotely working employees feel more competent and self-confident, while hybrid remotely working employees are more willing to work in the office, they do so in part.

According to the Kruskal–Valis H tests (p > 0.05), the assessments of the empowerment of remotely working employees do not differ significantly according to their age. All dimensions of empowerment were scored significantly higher by managers, while the reluctance to return to office significantly did not differ (p > 0.05). All dimensions of empowerment were rated significantly higher by individuals with degrees compared to those with vocational or secondary education, while reluctance to return to office did not differ significantly by education (p > 0.05). Meaning, enthusiasm, decision-making, autonomy, structural empowering, and leader’s empowering behaviour were rated significantly higher by employees working in a company for less than two years compared to longer periods of working in a company. Confidence in competence and reluctance to return to office did not differ significantly in terms of seniority in the current organisation (p > 0.05). Meaning, enthusiasm, decision-making, autonomy, structural empowering, and leader’s empowering behaviour are rated significantly higher in large companies, while confidence in competence and reluctance to return to office did not differ significantly by company size (p > 0.05). Meaning, enthusiasm, structural empowering, and leader’s empowering behaviour are rated significantly higher by individuals working in service, and trade compared to those working in production. Meanwhile, decision-making, autonomy, confidence in competence, and reluctance to return to the office did not differ significantly according to the area of activity of the company (p > 0.05).

The study revealed that all employee empowerment dimensions have statistically significant correlations with each other when remotely working at p < 0.05. The strongest links are between enthusiasm and meaning (r = 0.761), moderate strength—between meaning and structural empowering (r = 0.578), leader’s empowering behaviour (r = 0.573), decision making (r = 0.443), autonomy (r = 0.342), and confidence in competence (r = 0.308). A strong correlation was also found between a leader’s empowering behaviour and structural empowering (r = 0.759); a moderate correlation—with leader’s empowering behaviour and decision-making (r = 0.612), enthusiasm (r = 0.573), and autonomy (r = 0.545); and a weak correlation is found with confidence in competence dimension (r = 0.248). The structural empowering dimension correlates strongly with decision making (r = 0.706); moderately with enthusiasm (r = 0.578) and autonomy (r = 0.460); and weakly with confidence in competence (r = 0.285). The decision-making dimension is moderately strongly correlated with enthusiasm (r = 0.475) and autonomy—with enthusiasm (r = 0.342) and decision-making (r = 0.392); confidence in competence is weakly associated with enthusiasm (r = 0.283) and decision-making dimensions (r = 0.250).

It was also found that the reluctance to return to the office does not significantly correlate with most of the empowerment dimensions (p > 0.05), which shows that in many cases the manifestation of employee empowerment is not significantly related to their reluctance to return to the office, but this reluctance correlates with confidence in competence (r = 0.291), indicating that with greater confidence in competence, the reluctance to return to the office is higher.

Analysing the statements of meaning dimension (see

Table 2. Comparison of estimates of the dimensions of empowerment of remotely working employees.

Dimensions	M	SN	MD
Meaning	3.70	1.29	4.00
Enthusiasm	3.37	1.38	4.00
Decision making	3.23	0.97	3.40
Autonomy	3.10	0.91	3.33
Confidence in competence	4.10	1.13	4.00
Structural empowering	3.39	0.94	3.33
Leader’s empowering behaviour	3.48	0.92	3.60

), we see that the participants agreed most with the statement “I know that my work makes a significant contribution to the company’s results” (M = 3.73), and the least with the statement “My work helps me achieve my long-term goals” (M = 3.68). Analysing the evaluations of the statements in the decision-making dimension, it was found that the statement “I feel more responsible” was the most accepted (M = 3.49), and the statement “I would like to be given more authority” (M = 3.01) was the least agreed with. Analysing the assessments of the autonomy dimension, the participants of the study agreed most with the statement “I can control how I do my job” (M = 3.45), and least with the statement “I get too involved in work and have less free time” (M = 2.84). Analysing the assessments of the questions of structural empowering dimension, most of the participants agreed with the statements “I have all the necessary technological and IT tools to do the job properly” (M = 3.97) and “I get enough information to do the job” (M = 3.720), and least agreed with the statement “I have more training” (M = 2.73). Analysing the evaluations of a leader’s empowering behaviour, the participants agreed most with the statement “I feel the support of my manager and colleagues” (M = 3.65) and “My manager is an example to other employees” (M = 3.59), “With my supervisor, I examine the general trends of the country/world/area and the experience of other areas” (M = 3.20). The statement “I feel the desire and enthusiasm to try harder, to contribute extra to the work” is rated M = 3.37, “I feel that I am competent enough to do my job properly”—M = 4.10, and “I do not feel the need to return to the office”—M = 3.29.

It should be noted that the SN of all statements is not greater than 2, which indicates that the opinions of the respondents did not differ significantly, and their opinions can be considered quite unanimous about the meaning of the statement. The average response is more positive about the empowerment dimensions than the reflection of the average, so some individual respondents had a more negative, critical view of the expression of these dimensions than the larger majority of respondents.

In sum, the dimensions of confidence in competence (M = 4.10) and meaning (M = 3.70) are rated the best, leader’s empowering behaviour is rated M = 3.48, structural empowering—M = 3.39, enthusiasm—M = 3.37, decision making—M = 3.23, and, worst of all, autonomy (M = 3.10). This means that remotely working employees are self-confident and feel more competent and meaningful at work than those who could be could be empowered by a manager or structure and have less freedom of decision-making or autonomy.

A strong correlation was found in the case that if individuals are encouraged to take initiatives and new ideas in the company, the more these individuals have the opportunity to take the lead in activities (r = 0.803). It was also found that not feeling the need to return to the office did not correlate statistically significantly with most questions, which shows that there are no significant correlations with the issues of empowerment, but not feeling the need to return statistically significantly, (p < 0.05), albeit weakly (r < 0,3), is associated with greater control over the way individuals perform their work, better management of their working time, greater confidence in their competence to do their job properly, and greater knowledge of ways to maintain working relationships with colleagues.

The study also aimed to assess the links between the assessments of individual statements of remotely working employees and the sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants. The Spearman correlation method found statistically significant (p < 0.05) but weak (r < 0.3) correlations in about half of the cases, which indicates that the correlations between the sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants and the assessments of their empowerment questionnaire statements are weak.

As can be seen from the results of the survey, the respondents in the survey rated all the statements on the scale from 1 to 5 on average, from M = 2.73 (“I have more training”) to M = 4.10 (“I feel that I am competent enough to do my job properly”), i.e., the mean of all statements was higher than 2.5. Thus, it can be confirmed that the empowerment of remotely working employees is higher than average, which is broadly in line with the findings of research [14]. Although we do not have data on the difference between remote work and on-site work employee empowerment, as this was not the aim of this research, comparing the results with the empowerment studies of other authors, we can say that there are no direct negative effects of remote work on empowerment.

Of all those surveyed, the statement “I feel I am competent enough to do my job properly” received the most support from respondents (M = 4.10). This is the only statement with an average score above 4. This shows that remotely working employees have a high level of confidence in their skills and competence and a belief that they can achieve their goals.

5. Discussion

Despite the above-average empowerment of remotely working employees, which is characterised by a high level of confidence in competence and a sense of meaning, there are elements influencing the level of empowerment that need to be addressed in order to strengthen empowerment in any form of remote work.

Although Klidas and van Berg [36] identified one of the prerequisites for employee empowerment as the need for managers to delegate part of their authority and allow employees to participate in decision-making and share responsibility [17], a significant segment of employees feel they have too little power and influence over decision-making. A large segment of remotely working employees do not feel very autonomous.

The employees do not have a high level of desire and enthusiasm to do more to get the job done and contribute extra to the work, despite the fact that this is important for empowering employees according to Spreitzer [7]. This means that the rest of the respondents could have more enthusiasm to do more, submit new proposals, etc.

Based on the results of the research, it is reasonable to assume that working remotely pays too little attention to employee training and development, and according to Jokubauskaitė and Lazauskaitė-Zabielskė [37], work is more meaningful and enthusiastic for employees who are more ambitious and feel the need to do as much as possible to do better. According to Molina and Callahan [38], to achieve empowerment, employees must receive training and have all the necessary tools. Meanwhile, it is the possibility to use existing skills and acquire new ones that predicts empowerment [18]. The research also confirmed the conclusions made by Nakrošienė and Butkevičienė [19] that it is difficult to help an employee to gain informal power by working remotely, i.e., to create conditions for establishing contacts with colleagues and other work groups. This situation needs to be remedied as it reinforces employees feelings of isolation and helplessness. Žukauskaitė et al. [39] found that higher support also predicts greater professional self-efficacy of employees, but the study showed that more than a third of remotely working employees feel a lack of support from their managers and colleagues.

According to Jokubauskaitė and Lazauskaitė-Zabielskė [37], empowerment is associated with initiative, but, in this study, almost half of the respondents believe that the organisation does not implement employee proposals, and about half of the respondents state that the organisation does not promote initiatives and new ideas. If an organisation doesn’t show that employees’ ideas and suggestions are meaningful, it is hard to expect employees to be enthusiastic and feel fully empowered. The study found that if individuals are encouraged to take initiatives and new ideas in the company, the more these individuals have the opportunity to take the lead in the activities.

Mishra [40] argues that the most important factors in empowering as an immediate supervisor are the leader’s confidence in the employee that he or she will cope with the tasks entrusted to them and the granting of autonomy to the employee. According to Turkmenoglu [41], empowerment eliminates a lot of tension between an employee and a manager, but research has shown that a significant segment of employees do not feel that their managers trust their abilities and give them enough autonomy.

The study also revealed that Lithuanian companies lack empowering leadership. According to Ahearne et al. [42], a leader’s empowering behaviour increases employee empowerment, i.e., meaningfulness, participation in decision-making, self-employment, confidence in employees, and their ability to do the job. It is important for the employee to perceive the conditions created as empowering, because only in this way will he or she experience an empowering state [43].

The empowerment of employees in non-managerial positions is lower. Such a conclusion correlates with the conclusions made by other researchers [18]. For an employee to feel empowered, his or her supervisor must first be empowered. In addition, one of the prerequisites for employee empowerment is a leader’s empowering behaviour. It is necessary to encourage non-managerial employees to participate in the decision-making process aimed at a more efficient work process and to improve their qualifications so that they are not only willing but also competent in making decisions and taking responsibility for the decisions made and the results.

There is a lower level of empowerment of employees in smaller companies. There is reason to believe that in a number of smaller Lithuanian companies, managers are still the main decision-makers in micromanagement, while employees are only executors of their decisions, as Wright [28] argues.

As in the study by Lee, Willis, and Tian [2], correlation in lower empowerment of employees with longer work experience in organisations is found. It can be assumed that employees who have been working in the organisation for a long time no longer feel the need for challenges and self-realization. In order for them to feel empowered, additional tools are needed.

It is found that all dimensions have statistically significant relationships between them in the case of remotely working employees. This may indicate that the manifestation of dimensions in different aspects for remotely working employees is related and accumulated, and it is desirable to increase their manifestation in order to achieve a synergy effect. This is in line with the findings of Spreitzer [7] and Molina and Callahan [38], that the overall psychological empowerment of an employee is predicted by the dimensions of structural empowerment possibilities and resources.

Based on the study results, H1 is confirmed, because the manifestation of remote work empowerment is sufficient in all groups of both psychological and structural empowerment dimensions.

H2 is partially confirmed, as there is a significant difference in only one dimension, i.e., the confidence in competence, and the willingness to return to work between the empowerment of fully remotely working employees compared to hybrid remotely working employees.

Finally, H3 is confirmed, because different psychological and structural empowerment dimensions are correlated, and this means that sufficient manifestation of both dimensional groups better ensures employee empowerment when working remotely due to the synergy of both dimensional groups.

6. Conclusions

Empowering employees should be one of the key goals of an organisation seeking sustainable results in today’s highly competitive business environment. Research shows that empowered employees work more productively and create more value, both for the organisation and for themselves. A review of the scientific literature shows that this construct is based on the idea of making employees happier and more productive by giving them resources, authority, opportunities, and motivation to do the job, as well as holding them accountable for their actions. An employee will feel more empowered at work if he or she feels the meaning and enthusiasm of the job and is competent to carry out the work assigned. Meanwhile, structural empowerment manifests itself as the opportunities, information, resources, and support that exist in the organisation and are available to the employee, which allow the employee to perform the work assigned in a successful manner. Considering the specifics of remote work, including the growing use of hybrid remote work, the empowerment of employees to work remotely poses challenges, but is a form of work organisation to increase employees’ empowerment.

An empirical study has shown that in the case of employees of Lithuanian organisations working remotely, their empowerment is sufficient. Remote work has not been found to have a direct negative impact on the psychological empowerment of employees. Most remotely working employees feel confident in their competence, as well as the meaning of what they do, they are able to make decisions, influence other people, and be able to set their own goals and choose how to achieve them. It is found that there are issues related to the empowerment status of employees that require additional measures to increase employee empowerment, as some remotely working employees feel under-empowered, lack the enthusiasm to contribute more to the work, do not feel able to control how they perform their work, choose their method of performing the work, do not have all the necessary IT and technological means, do not share information and communicate with other colleagues, lack the support of leaders and colleagues, implementation of proposals and initiatives, and lack opportunities for learning and development in the organisation.

Considering the results of the empirical research, it is proposed to increase leaders’ empowering behaviour to empower employees working remotely in Lithuanian companies. To reduce micromanagement, employees need to be given more power and freedom of decision. The leader must share information, communicate, provide regular feedback, and maintain team spirit in all possible forms by preventing team members from feeling lonely and excluded. To increase the competence of employees in remote work, organisations must create conditions for training and development. Organisations need to create an empowering work environment that provides all the IT and technological tools needed for remote work, secure communication, information, and document sharing.

In order to empower remotely working employees, it is important to ensure a balanced and sufficient manifestation of all dimensions of psychological and structural empowerment in order to be able to achieve the synergy effect across all dimensions, as it is found that all dimensions have statistically significant interrelationships.

Further investigation in the research problem field is possible to find out what activities and tools are needed in organisations to ensure systematic manifestation of all the different dimensions. Moreover, the manifestation of employee empowerment and its enhancement can be explored by comparing on-site, hybrid, and remote work conditions or applying it to specific companies.