Technology meets psychology: digital finance integration, empowerment, and satisfaction among fintech employees

Abstract

The rapid integration of digital finance systems is reshaping how employees experience their work, yet its psychological effects remain underexplored. Anchored in Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), this study examines the relationship between organizational digital finance integration (ODFI) and employee job satisfaction, considering employee psychological empowerment (EPE) as a mediator and digital mindset as a key moderator. Survey data were collected from 317 fintech employees in China, spanning three waves to enhance temporal separation and minimize bias. Findings suggest that ODFI enhances psychological empowerment, which, in turn, boosts job satisfaction—but only clearly among employees with a stronger digital mindset. Those less comfortable with technology appear to benefit less from integration efforts. By connecting personal cognitive traits with organizational change outcomes, this research extends the application of SCT into the domain of digital finance workplaces. The study also raises practical concerns, suggesting that firms must go beyond technological adoption and actively support employee adaptability if they seek genuine improvements in workplace attitudes.

Introduction

In recent years, digital finance has evolved from a peripheral innovation into a central organizational capability, particularly within China’s fintech sector [1, 2]. This transformation has brought sweeping changes not only to business models but also to how employees experience their work environments. While much has been written about the strategic and operational implications of digital finance [3, 4], less attention has been paid to its psychological consequences for employees embedded in such systems. What happens, psychologically, to workers when their organizations aggressively adopt digital finance tools? The question becomes especially relevant as more companies expect employees to adapt to technology-driven processes without parallel psychological support [5].

The link between organizational systems and individual-level outcomes has long been explored through the lens of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Bandura’s foundational idea—that human behavior is shaped through a dynamic interplay between personal factors, environmental influences, and behaviors [6] offers a productive lens to examine how organizational digital finance integration (ODFI) influences job satisfaction. More specifically, SCT allows us to move beyond simple causality and think in terms of mediated and moderated processes, where individual traits such as a digital mindset might shape how organizational changes affect personal empowerment and, eventually, workplace attitudes.

Despite the wide application of SCT in management and organizational psychology [7, 8], empirical work connecting digital finance integration to employee-level psychological outcomes remains surprisingly sparse. Most existing studies have concentrated on macroeconomic outcomes (e.g., efficiency, scalability, risk management) or consumer behavior, leaving a gap in understanding the internal human impact within firms that undergo digital transformation [1, 9]. It’s worth distinguishing digital finance integration from more general digital transformation efforts. ODFI often entails real-time automation of sensitive processes such as payment authorization, risk scoring, compliance tracking, and client portfolio management. Unlike generic digitalization in retail or manufacturing, where automation may support routine logistics or customer interfaces, ODFI touches core financial decisions, regulatory compliance, and exposure to market volatility. These factors create qualitatively different psychological demands: employees must interpret dense financial data rapidly, operate within strict audit trails, and navigate systems connected to volatile external fintech platforms. Such conditions amplify both the learning burden and the psychological implications of digital adoption. A handful of studies have suggested that employee psychological empowerment (EPE) serves as a mediating force in tech-driven workplaces [10–12]. Still, less attention has been paid to this concept specifically in digital finance, nor have the nuances of individual digital mindset as a moderator in this process been explored. These omissions are striking, especially in the context of Chinese fintech firms, where digital innovation is not a future goal—it’s a present reality [10].

This study seeks to fill that gap by proposing and empirically testing a moderated mediation model. We suggest that ODFI, while ostensibly a technical or financial shift, has psychological spillovers that influence how empowered employees feel in their roles. Psychological empowerment, in turn, is expected to play a central mediating role in the relationship between ODFI and job satisfaction. But this isn’t a one-size-fits-all process. Drawing on SCT’s attention to personal agency, we argue that the degree to which employees adopt a digital mindset—an openness to technological learning, comfort with ambiguity, and intrinsic motivation to engage with digital systems [11] moderates how ODFI influences their sense of empowerment. In other words, a digital mindset shapes the psychological interpretation of organizational change.

By situating this inquiry in the high-intensity, digitally saturated world of Chinese fintech companies, we gain a unique empirical context where ODFI is both advanced and uneven, providing a natural laboratory for examining variance in psychological outcomes. The study doesn’t aim merely to establish statistical relationships; rather, it hopes to uncover how technology-driven organizational changes are filtered through human perception and cognition. The findings could carry meaningful implications—not just for academics interested in SCT, digital transformation, or organizational psychology, but also for practitioners attempting to implement digital finance strategies without alienating their workforce. As firms invest heavily in digital systems, understanding the psychological mechanisms that link these investments to job satisfaction could help design more humane, sustainable transformation strategies. Figure 1 shows the proposed framework of the study.

Fig. 1.

Study model

Social cognitive theory

Social Cognitive Theory, as developed by Bandura, is built around a fairly intuitive idea: people don’t just react to their environments—they interpret and shape them while being shaped in return [6]. What makes this theory particularly relevant for the study of workplace change, especially in high-tech industries, is its focus on how individuals make sense of shifting conditions through cognitive and emotional processes [12]. In a fintech company undergoing digital finance integration, this means employees aren’t merely adjusting to new tools—they’re processing what those changes mean for their roles, their sense of purpose, and their ability to contribute meaningfully.

Rather than viewing behavior as a direct outcome of external conditions, SCT sees behavior as part of a loop [7], where beliefs, context, and actions influence each other. In our case, digital finance integration might open up new ways of working, but whether those changes lead to better job satisfaction depends heavily on how empowered employees feel in the process. That feeling isn’t uniform. Some are more naturally inclined to embrace technology. Others hesitate. This variation is where the concept of digital mindset becomes central, acting as a kind of lens through which people filter organizational change, shaping both their experience of empowerment and, eventually, how satisfied they are in their work. Therefore, this study utilizes SCT as an overarching theory to test the proposed model.

Organizational digital finance integration and employee psychological empowerment

The introduction of digital finance systems within organizations doesn’t simply change workflows—it alters how employees perceive their roles, autonomy, and value. In fintech firms, where rapid technological integration is almost constant [2], employees are increasingly expected to engage with financial tools that automate decisions, increase transparency, and decentralize access to data. When implemented effectively, these systems can shift power structures, making employees feel more capable of making informed decisions, thereby enhancing psychological empowerment [13].

SCT helps explain why this occurs. According to [6], environmental structures—like digitally integrated financial platforms—can influence self-efficacy and perceived control, especially when individuals are given opportunities to learn and interact meaningfully with their environment. Empowerment here is not handed down from management; it’s experienced when systems allow individuals to feel more competent, autonomous, and impactful [14]. In the context of ODFI, this could mean easier access to real-time financial information, more control over reporting tools, or even the ability to act on predictive insights without managerial gatekeeping. There’s emerging empirical support for this link. For example, Spreitzer’s model of psychological empowerment emphasizes competence, autonomy, and impact [15], all of which can be enhanced by digital tools that promote decentralization and data visibility. Similarly, studies in digital transformation contexts [16, 17] have found that tech-enabled work environments can increase employees’ perceived empowerment, provided the systems are accessible and intuitively designed.

In Chinese fintech firms, this dynamic may be even more pronounced. These companies are often early adopters of digital finance technologies and tend to operate with flatter hierarchies [2], which creates space for employees to interpret new tools as opportunities for growth and agency. Hence, it stands to reason that ODFI, when implemented with user agency in mind, would positively shape psychological empowerment among employees. Subsequently, we proposed the following:

H1: ODFI is positively associated with Employee Psychological Empowerment.

Employee psychological empowerment and job satisfaction

When people feel that they matter at work—that their input carries weight, that they have space to act, and that their contributions are aligned with something meaningful—it tends to shift how they view the entire job [13, 14]. Psychological empowerment, as it’s been defined by Spreitzer, captures this blend of autonomy, competence, and purpose [15]. But it’s not a fixed trait. It ebbs and flows depending on how work is structured and whether employees are given real room to operate. In fast-moving environments like fintech, where employees are often dealing with emerging systems and loosely defined roles, this sense of internal control can be the difference between engagement and exhaustion.

Now, whether empowerment leads to job satisfaction feels intuitive, but it also tracks well with theory. Bandura’s SCT argues that people don’t just respond to their conditions—they interpret them, compare them against internal standards, and then decide how to feel about them [6]. So when someone feels competent and self-directed at work, they’re more likely to see challenges as motivating rather than threatening. That reframing can directly influence how content or fulfilled they feel in their role. It’s not just the work that matters, in other words—it’s how people experience their place within it [16].

Empirical research reinforces this. Seibert, Wang, and Courtright (2011) conducted a meta-analysis showing a strong and consistent link between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction across sectors [18]. More recent studies in tech-heavy environments [16, 19] suggest that empowerment becomes especially salient in workplaces undergoing digital transformation. In the context of Chinese fintech firms, where continuous change is the norm, feeling empowered might act as a buffer against stress, increasing the sense that one’s work is meaningful and personally sustainable. Thus, it becomes plausible—if not likely—that greater psychological empowerment will correspond with higher job satisfaction in this environment. Subsequently, we proposed the following:

H2: Employee Psychological Empowerment is positively associated with Job Satisfaction.

Mediating role of employee psychological empowerment

The introduction of advanced digital finance tools might influence how satisfied employees feel in their jobs [20], but this isn’t likely to occur through a direct path. ODFI, on its own, is a structural change—it doesn’t carry intrinsic emotional or motivational content [10]. What seems more plausible, especially through the lens of SCT, is that these structural changes alter how employees feel about their work, which in turn affects how they evaluate it. SCT emphasizes that environmental factors, such as new technologies or workflows, impact behavior and outcomes through internal cognitive mechanisms [8]. In this case, ODFI may enhance access to information, streamline tasks, or flatten hierarchies, but it’s the perceived empowerment that mediates whether employees feel more engaged or satisfied. If they feel more capable, autonomous, and impactful as a result of ODFI, job satisfaction is likely to follow. If not—if the tools are experienced as burdensome, opaque, or imposed—then ODFI could even reduce satisfaction.

This idea is echoed in several empirical studies. For example [18], found that empowerment mediates the link between digital leadership and performance-related outcomes. In more recent tech-driven settings [21], observed that technological change is linked with employee empowerment and life satisfaction, with increased feelings of control and autonomy. In the fintech context, where ODFI is complex but potentially liberating, the presence or absence of psychological empowerment is likely to be the key mechanism explaining its downstream effect on job satisfaction. Hence, the mediation hypothesis isn’t just statistically convenient—it’s conceptually central to understanding how employees internalize organizational change. Subsequently, we proposed the following:

H3: Employee Psychological Empowerment mediates the relationship between ODFI and Job Satisfaction.

Moderating role of digital mindset

Not every employee responds to technological change in the same way [22, 23]. Some interpret it as an opportunity; others see it as a disruption. This divergence in response is where the digital mindset becomes especially relevant. It’s not a technical skillset per se, but a cognitive orientation—a kind of internal readiness to engage with digital tools, tolerate complexity, and remain curious in the face of change [11, 24]. Employees with this mindset tend to lean into new systems rather than resist them.

While a digital mindset shares surface features with constructs like technology self-efficacy and innovation orientation, it represents a distinct psychological lens. Self-efficacy focuses on task-specific confidence—whether someone believes they can perform a given behavior—whereas digital mindset reflects a broader, stable disposition toward interpreting technological change itself as a growth opportunity. Unlike domain-general openness or curiosity, digital mindset is cognitively anchored in future-oriented adaptability: a tendency to stay receptive, engaged, and optimistic in the face of complexity and evolving digital tools [14, 28]. Ghosh et al. [14] frame it as a socio-cognitive orientation that governs how people absorb and reframe digital transformation, while Mirhabibi et al. [28] demonstrate its predictive power for digital entrepreneurship readiness above and beyond self-efficacy. This framing allows us to conceptualize digital mindset not merely as behavioral confidence, but as a moderating lens that filters how structural change, like ODFI, is psychologically absorbed and translated into empowerment.

In the context of ODFI, the presence of a digital mindset could significantly shape how the transformation is experienced. Where one employee might feel overwhelmed by new platforms, another, with a higher digital mindset, might feel newly empowered [24]. SCT accounts for this through the concept of self-regulation and selective engagement. Bandura emphasized that people are not passive recipients of change; their beliefs about their capabilities and their interpretations of new demands determine how external structures affect them [25].

What this means for empowerment is straightforward but important. The same ODFI environment may lead to vastly different psychological outcomes depending on how employees interpret and internalize it. Digital mindset acts as a lens—perhaps even a filter—that conditions the impact of structural changes on personal experience [26]. Several studies support this logic in parallel domains. For instance [27], found that self-efficacy influenced AI adoption on the work overload of employees. In fintech firms, where systems evolve rapidly, those with a higher digital mindset are far more likely to perceive empowerment in the face of change, making moderation a central piece of the relational puzzle. Subsequently, we proposed the following:

H4:Digital mindset moderates the relationship between ODFI and EPE, such that the positive association is stronger for employees with higher levels of digital mindset.

If digital mindset shapes how employees interpret and absorb organizational changes [11], it stands to reason that it would also condition the full pathway from ODFI to job satisfaction. Here, SCT provides a coherent explanation: individuals differ in how they internalize environmental structures based on their beliefs and cognitive styles. Those with higher digital mindset are more likely to respond to ODFI with increased psychological empowerment, and thus, more likely to experience greater job satisfaction downstream. When that mindset is absent, the empowerment mechanism weakens, and the entire mediated pathway becomes less effective. So the relationship isn’t static—it flexes depending on personal orientation toward technology. This conditional indirect effect forms the basis for the moderated mediation hypothesis. Subsequently, we proposed the following:

H5:The indirect effect of ODFI on job satisfaction through EPE is conditional on digital mindset, such that the mediated relationship is stronger when digital mindset is high.

Research methodology

Data collection

To examine the proposed relationships within the context of Chinese fintech firms, we adopted a quantitative survey design, administered in three temporal waves to reduce common method bias [28]. Given the nature of the constructs—particularly perceptions of empowerment, satisfaction, and mindset—we determined that self-reported data was most appropriate. But rather than collecting all variables at once, which risks inflated associations, we staggered the data collection across time. We used online surveys to reach respondents efficiently across multiple organizations. This method was particularly suited to the digitally fluent workforce typical of fintech companies, and previous work has supported its effectiveness in organizational settings [29–31]. Before launching the main study, we conducted an in-depth pre-test with four mid-level managers from tech-oriented firms. The goal was to clarify wording, identify ambiguities, and ensure alignment with local interpretations of constructs. These interviews prompted several small changes in terminology and item phrasing, especially for constructs like “digital mindset,” which do not always translate cleanly across organizational cultures.

Following that, a pilot study was run with 20 employees from fintech firms, again sampled from our target population. Based on their feedback, we refined the survey instrument—adding explanatory notes to certain items, adjusting the tone of several questions, and providing additional context where needed. This iterative process helped enhance content validity and participant comprehension. Because the original instruments were developed in English, we employed a translation and back-translation process [32] to ensure linguistic accuracy and conceptual equivalence in Mandarin. During this phase, we also made contextual modifications to certain items to reflect industry-specific terminology used in Chinese fintech firms, without altering the conceptual core of the scales.

In terms of sampling, we used a purposive sampling technique targeting employees working in fintech companies across several major urban centers in China (including Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Hangzhou). Our primary contacts within each organization were HR managers or team leads, who assisted in disseminating the survey link among eligible participants. Eligibility criteria included full-time employment and at least six months of tenure within the current organization to ensure familiarity with digital finance systems. To reduce the likelihood of inflated correlations due to common method variance, we administered the survey in three waves. In Wave 1, we contacted 650 participants working in fintech firms, participants provided demographic data as well as responses related to ODFI and digital mindset. Three months later, in Wave 2, the same participants received the EPE items. After another three-month interval, Wave 3 assessed job satisfaction and received 338 responses in this final phase.

The decision to space the survey waves approximately three months apart was informed by both theoretical and practical considerations [33, 34]. From a theoretical perspective, research on cognitive adaptation and digital tool assimilation suggests that employees typically require multiple weeks of active engagement to form stable perceptions of empowerment in response to organizational change. Similarly, fintech firms often operate on quarterly product or reporting cycles, during which new digital systems are implemented, evaluated, and internalized. These timeframes align with observed rhythms of learning and psychological adjustment, making a 90-day lag sufficient to capture evolving interpretations of autonomy and satisfaction without overextending the window of recall. The interval also balanced the need for temporal separation against the risk of attrition [35], particularly given the fast-paced nature of the industry.

All participants were informed of the voluntary and confidential nature of their participation. An informed consent statement was provided at the beginning of each wave, clearly explaining the purpose of the study, data handling procedures, and the right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Personal identifiers were anonymized and stored separately from survey responses to maintain respondent confidentiality. The study adhered to ethical standards for human subjects research and was approved by the relevant institutional review board. This methodological approach—particularly the three-wave design, piloting procedures, and cultural adaptation of the instruments—was intended to increase the validity, clarity, and credibility of the data while respecting the practical realities of collecting data in dynamic, high-pressure work environments. From those final 338 responses we dropped 21 responses as they were either not fully completed or left blank. The final sample size was 317 responses including 43% females and 57% male respondents. The average working experience was 7.66 years (SD = 4.50) and average age was 36.15 years (SD = 5.89).

Measurement

In this study, survey items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 corresponded to strongly disagree and 5 to strongly agree. To assess organizational digital finance integration, we employed a five-item scale adapted from the work of [36], they measure adoption of digital technology, however, current study modified the context to captures employees’ perceptions of the extent and quality of digital finance integration within their organizations. A sample item includes “Integration of digital finance enables my organization to provide better service to my customers.” Digital Mindset was measured using five items, drawn and adapted from prior conceptualizations found in the study of [11], reflecting openness to technology, comfort with digital complexity, and proactive engagement with digital systems. A sample item includes “Our firm empowers me to implement digital strategies.” For employee psychological empowerment, we utilized a twelve-item measure based on [15] research, focusing on employees’ feelings of competence, autonomy, and impact in their roles. A sample statement includes “I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job.” Finally, job satisfaction was also measured with three items, likewise adapted from [37], emphasizing affective and cognitive evaluations of one’s overall job experience. An example item was, “All in all, I am satisfied with my job.” Minor adjustments were made to item wording to ensure clarity and contextual relevance for employees working in Chinese fintech firms.

Data analysis and results

To explore the proposed relationships, we turned to Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)—a method particularly useful when working with complex constructs that isn’t directly observable. Given the number of variables involved and the interest in both mediation and moderation, SEM provided the flexibility needed. We carried out the analysis using AMOS 24, applying maximum likelihood estimation throughout. Alongside this, we used Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 7) in SPSS to examine the conditional indirect effects. Results of descriptive statistics, correlations, and discriminant validity are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of descriptive statistics and correlation measures used in the study

Constructs	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Age1	36.15	5.89	-
2. Gender	0.57	0.49	0.01	-
3. Experience1	7.66	4.50	0.27**	0.02	-
4. Organizational Digital Finance Integration	3.59	0.79	0.19*	0.03	0.04	(0.81)
5. Digital Mindset	3.65	0.87	0.04	− 0.07	0.04	0.11	(0.83)
6. Employee Psychological Empowerment	3.66	0.80	0.07	0.06	0.10	0.38***	0.23**	(0.77)
7. Job Satisfaction	3.74	0.86	0.10	0.08	0.11	0.50***	0.02	0.59***	(0.84)

Note: Participants’ age and experience are recorded in years (sample size: N = 317); gender coding: Male = 1, Female = 0; Diagonal values represent the square root of AVE; *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001

Measurement model

We started with the measurement model, using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to assess whether our data fit the structure we had theorized. The results pointed to a strong fit: model fit indices fell within acceptable ranges—χ²/df = 1.43, CFI = 0.979, TLI = 0.976, RMSEA = 0.037 and SRMR = 0.052. These numbers suggest the items we used to measure each construct were performing well and weren’t bleeding into one another conceptually. For reliability, we checked factor loadings (all above 0.60), Cronbach’s alpha, and composite reliability, which comfortably exceeded the 0.70 threshold. Convergent validity was supported by AVE values surpassing 0.50; these results are presented in Table 2. For discriminant validity, we used the Fornell–Larcker test, results shown in Table 1 confirming that each construct shared more variance with its own indicators than with other constructs.

Table 2.

Construct metrics: item loadings, cronbach’s α, composite reliability, and AVE values

Constructs	Loadings	Cronbach’s α	CR	AVE
Organizational Digital Finance Integration	0.753–0.845	0.907	0.909	0.667
Digital Mindset	0.803–0.874	0.912	0.914	0.682
Employee Psychological Empowerment	0.722–0.810	0.946	0.947	0.600
Job Satisfaction	0.821–0.864	0.876	0.877	0.704

Note: AVE = Average Variance Extracted; CR = Composite Reliability

We also needed to be cautious about common method bias. Since we collected all responses via self-report surveys, we tested for this in several ways. Harman’s single-factor test showed no dominant factor (the largest explained just under 37% of the variance). We also ran a latent method factor model, and the fit didn’t improve in any meaningful way—model indices barely shifted, which suggested that bias from the method itself wasn’t driving our findings.

Structural model

After ensuring the measurements fitness, we turned to the structural model. Again, model fit looked good: χ² = 461.32, df = 293, giving a χ²/df = 1.57, with CFI = 0.970, TLI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.043, and SRMR = 0.059. With that established, we moved to test the paths outlined in our hypotheses.

The results in Table 3 present the link between ODFI and EPE came through clearly (β = 0.37, p <.001), supporting H1. The next connection—between EPE and Job Satisfaction—was also significant (β = 0.66, p <.001), lending support to H2. To investigate mediation (H3), we used bootstrapping with 2,000 samples. The indirect effect of ODFI on job satisfaction, through EPE, was statistically significant (b = 0.18, 95% BCCI [0.12, 0.33]), reinforcing the idea that empowerment is a key mechanism explaining how finance digitization affects workplace satisfaction.

Table 3.

Hypothesis testing results

	β			Supported
Organizational Digital Finance Integration (ODFI) → Employee Psychological Empowerment (H1)	0.37***			Yes
Employee Psychological Empowerment (EPE)→ Job Satisfaction (H2)	0.66***			Yes
Mediating effects
	β	LLCI	ULCI	Yes
ODFI→ EPE → Job Satisfaction (H3)	0.18	0.12	0.33
Moderating effects
Digital Mindset (DM) → EPE	0.36***
ODFIxDM → EPE (H4)	0.31***			Yes

Note: LLCI and ULCI denote the lower and upper confidence interval limits, respectively; ***p <.001

For H4, we explored whether a digital mindset shaped the strength of the ODFI–EPE link. Results showed a clear moderating effect (β = 0.31, p <.001). The relationship between ODFI and empowerment was more pronounced among employees with higher levels of digital mindset. Figure 2 shows the moderating effect of digital mindset on the relationship between ODFI and EPE. The graph presents three regression lines representing low (–1 SD), average, and high (+ 1 SD) levels of digital mindset. The steeper slope at higher levels of digital mindset (β = 0.68, p <.001) indicates that employees with a strong digital orientation experience greater psychological empowerment when their organization adopts ODFI. Conversely, for those with a low digital mindset (β = 0.06, p >.05), the impact of ODFI is negligible, highlighting the importance of individual disposition in shaping organizational outcomes.

Fig. 2.

Moderating influence of digital mindset on the relationship between ODFI and EPE

Finally, we tested H5, which proposed a moderated mediation effect. The index of moderated mediation, as shown in Table 4, was significant (b = 0.16, 95% BCCI [0.06, 0.27]), confirming that the indirect pathway from ODFI to job satisfaction—through EPE—was stronger when digital mindset was high. We broke this down across levels: at low mindset (–1 SD), the effect was modest (b = 0.02); at the average level, it grew (b = 0.16); and at high mindset (+ 1 SD), it was most pronounced (b = 0.30). In short, the whole psychological chain from organizational systems to satisfaction depends not just on what the organization does, but how ready people are to work with those systems.

Table 4.

Moderated mediation testing results

Digital Mindset	Boot indirect effects	Boot SE	Boot Lower limit 95% CI	Boot Upper limit 95% CI
Conditional indirect effects of Organizational Digital Finance Integration on Job Satisfaction via EPE
-1 SD	0.02	0.06	-0.11	0.14
Mean	0.16	0.05	0.07	0.25
+ 1 SD	0.30	0.07	0.16	0.44
Index of Moderated Mediation (H5)
	0.16	0.06	0.06	0.27

Note: CI = Confidence Interval; Bootstrap sample size = 5000

Discussion

The findings of this study reinforce the idea that organizational digital finance integration can foster positive psychological outcomes among employees, particularly when mediated through psychological empowerment. The observed positive relationship between ODFI and EPE aligns closely with earlier research suggesting that technological systems can strengthen employees’ sense of autonomy and competence when they are implemented thoughtfully [15, 38]. Consistent with SCT, the results highlight that structural changes are filtered through personal cognitive interpretations, not simply absorbed passively [6, 39].

The significant mediation effect of EPE on the ODFI–Job Satisfaction link adds nuance to prior work by [20], reinforcing the role of empowerment as a psychological mechanism behind organizational change outcomes. Notably, the moderating role of digital mindset strengthens the argument that personal agency and orientation toward technology are essential in understanding how employees experience change [11, 40]. Employees with a higher digital mindset reported stronger empowerment from digital finance systems, which in turn enhanced job satisfaction. These patterns mirror findings from [41], suggesting that positive individual traits amplify the benefits of organizational transformation. Taken together, the study provides a layered understanding of how fintech employees navigate digital finance integration, offering theoretical and empirical support for SCT in high-tech organizational contexts.

However, not all evidence fits neatly with our findings. In some organizational contexts, especially where digital finance systems are introduced without adequate support or are perceived as tools of oversight rather than enablement, the expected gains in empowerment or satisfaction don’t always materialize. Studies have observed that when digital transitions feel top-down or overly technical, employees may disengage or even experience increased stress. In these cases, the same tools that offer empowerment elsewhere may be seen as intrusive or opaque. This tension reinforces our point: the psychological outcomes of digital integration are not automatic. They are shaped by how individuals perceive and interact with these systems, making personal orientation, like digital mindset, central to understanding when and why such initiatives succeed.

Theoretical implications

This study contributes to the growing intersection of technology adoption and organizational psychology by providing a theoretically grounded, empirically tested model linking digital finance integration to employee outcomes. By anchoring the analysis in SCT, it demonstrates that the effects of organizational changes are not uniform but are moderated by personal dispositions such as digital mindset. The inclusion of psychological empowerment as a mediating mechanism builds on the frameworks proposed by Spreitzer (1995) and [20], offering stronger causal clarity in the context of digital finance transformations. Moreover, the findings expand the boundary conditions of SCT by applying it to a fintech environment—a setting where rapid technological changes make personal agency particularly salient. In doing so, this research highlights the need to integrate individual cognitive factors into broader organizational change theories, rather than treating structural interventions as inherently beneficial. It invites future theory-building efforts to view employee adaptability as a core explanatory force in digital workplace studies.

Practical implications

From a managerial standpoint, the results suggest that simply implementing digital finance tools is not enough to drive employee satisfaction. Organizations must pay close attention to how these tools impact employees’ sense of empowerment [16]. Interventions aimed at cultivating a digital mindset could significantly magnify the positive psychological effects of digital transformation. Training programs that promote technological curiosity, resilience, and adaptability may help employees extract greater personal value from organizational changes. Furthermore, companies should design digital systems with user empowerment in mind, ensuring transparency, autonomy, and actionable insights rather than top-down control. Especially in fintech firms operating in fast-paced environments like China [2], nurturing psychological empowerment through well-structured digital platforms could serve as a sustainable source of job satisfaction and retention. Managers would benefit from framing digital integration efforts not just as operational upgrades but as opportunities for employee growth and professional enrichment. In this sense, human resource strategies must be tightly coupled with digital finance initiatives.

Limitations and future research directions

While the three-wave design strengthens the study’s causal inferences, the reliance on self-reported data still poses potential biases. Although measures were taken to mitigate common method variance, observational or supervisor-rated assessments could complement future studies. Another limitation lies in the sectoral focus: fintech firms provide a unique digital environment that may not generalize to more traditional industries. Future research could replicate the model in different organizational contexts to examine boundary conditions. Moreover, the cross-cultural specifics of Chinese fintech employees might shape the interpretations of empowerment and digital mindset. Comparative studies across different cultural settings could provide a richer understanding of these dynamics. Finally, longitudinal designs spanning longer periods could reveal how psychological empowerment and satisfaction evolve as digital transformations mature over time.

Author contributions

Liu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing, Project administration. Soomro: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Original draft preparation, Visualization.

Funding

There was no funding taken for this study.

Data availability

Data for this study can be attained at the request from the corresponding author.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

According to the Declaration of Helsinki, the research was approved by SEM Hubei Engineering University’s Ethical Committee, and all respondents were required to provide written informed consent. Participation was voluntary, and participants were told of the study’s goal. Privacy was maintained, and responses were submitted anonymously.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.