Organizational Psychology Review

Organizational Psychology Review
http://opr.sagepub.com/
Drivers and outcomes of team psychological empowerment: A meta-analytic review

and model test
M. Travis Maynard, John E. Mathieu, Lucy L. Gilson, Ernest H. O'Boyle, Jr and Konstantin P.
Cigularov
Organizational Psychology Review 2013 3: 101 originally published online 12 October 2012
DOI: 10.1177/2041386612456868
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://opr.sagepub.com/content/3/2/101
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology
Additional services and information for Organizational Psychology Review can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://opr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://opr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://opr.sagepub.com/content/3/2/101.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Apr 23, 2013
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 12, 2012
What is This?
Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 25, 2014

Organizational
Psychology
Article Review
Organizational Psychology Review

3(2) 101–137
Drivers and outcomes of team ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
psychological empowerment: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2041386612456868
A meta-analytic review opr.sagepub.com
and model test
M. Travis Maynard
Colorado State University, USA
John E. Mathieu
University of Connecticut, USA
Lucy L. Gilson
University of Connecticut, USA
Ernest H. O’Boyle Jr
University of Iowa, USA
Konstantin P. Cigularov
Old Dominion University, USA
Abstract
Using meta-analysis and structural equation modeling, we examine the unique and combined rela-
tionships between team psychological empowerment, its antecedents, and outcomes. First, we
seek to extend the team psychological empowerment nomological network by including team
members’ affective reactions as an outcome. In addition, we consider the moderating influence
of team type, how empowerment was measured, and team size on the relationships between team
psychological empowerment, its antecedents, and outcomes. Second, we use our analytical results
to clarify a number of theoretical perspectives, but more importantly to offer suggestions regard-
ing where research in the area of team psychological empowerment should proceed. Finally, in
keeping with the broader team effectiveness framework, we present our recommendations for
future research using the following categories: (a) antecedents, (b) outcomes, (c) moderators,
(d) mediators, and (e) additional directions for future research.
Corresponding author:
M. Travis Maynard, Colorado State University, Department of Management, 211 Rockwell Hall, Fort Collins, CO
80523-1275, USA.
Email: Travis.Maynard@business.colostate.edu

102 Organizational Psychology Review 3(2)
Keywords
meta-analysis, team empowerment
Paper received 22 February 2012; revised version accepted 5 July 2012.
Global markets, digital communications, and literatures. Their work is an important contribu-
fierce competition, have placed pressure on tion which illustrates, among other things, that
organizations to become leaner, quicker, and empowerment relations are relatively homolo-
more responsive. To meet these changing gous (i.e., comparable) across levels of analy-
environmental and competitive demands, many sis. However, several questions remain
organizations are using work teams in the hope unanswered within the team psychological
of becoming more agile and proactive (e.g., empowerment nomological network that we
Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Mathieu, seek to address in the current study.
Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; Sundstrom, First, while Seibert et al. (2011) examined
1999). With this new orientation, organizations both individual- and team-level psychological
have sought to identify ‘‘levers’’ that can be empowerment, their meta-analysis included
adjusted to enhance the effectiveness of their only 22 team-level studies, whereas ours
teams. One such tool that is increasingly being includes 79 independent samples (75 studies)
utilized is empowerment (Lawler, Mohrman, & that enabled us to conduct additional analysis,
Ledford, 1995). In fact, team empowerment has such as examining the relationship between
been heralded as a means to enhance both team psychological empowerment and mem-
objective team performance and team members’ affective reactions. Team research has
bers’ affective reactions (e.g., Kirkman & historically (e.g., Hackman & Morris, 1975)
Rosen, 1999). and more recently (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen,
The idea that teams should be structured 1999; Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006a) con-
such that they are able to make their own sidered members’ reactions to be important
decisions and be responsible for their func- outcomes of team functioning. Second, with the
tioning is not new (e.g., Trist, Higgin, Murray, added studies we also were able to examine
& Pollack, 1963). The importance of having several moderating relationships. In particular,
teams believe that they can work on their own we considered the impact of team size and type
and be responsible for their actions and out- of team, as well as highlighting the role that the
comes is a foundational management concept nature and measurement of team psychological
dating back to the days of Kurt Lewin and the empowerment may play as a moderator. As
Harwood Studies of the 1930–1940s (cf. detailed in what follows, there have been
Burnes, 2007; Marrow, 1969). Consequently, four- and two-dimensional versions of team
research interest in what facilitates teams psychological empowerment advanced and
functioning independently, acting autono- used in the literature. We anticipated significant
mously, being responsible, self-managed, and substantive differences in study correlations
having members believe they are empowered attributable to the manner in which the con-
has, not surprisingly, resulted in a great number struct was conceptualized and therefore, we feel
of empirical investigations. In an effort to that considering this influence is an important
empirically review this extensive literature, addition to the literature.
Seibert, Wang, and Courtright (2011) published Furthermore, similar to the work conducted
a meta-analytic review of the individual- and by Seibert et al. (2011), we examine the rela-
team-level psychological empowerment tionships between various antecedent variables

Maynard et al. 103
and psychological empowerment. However, we moderating variables that can have significant
offer one important difference. Namely, given influences on the aforementioned relationships.
the construct confusion regarding structural and We then use meta-analytic correlations as
psychological empowerment, we examine inputs to an integrative SEM model test. Lastly,
structural empowerment as a unique antecedent we outline the contributions, limitations, and
of psychological empowerment and examine directions for future research. This last compo-
(in isolation) the relationship that exists nent is critical, as we have taken Humphrey’s
between these two distinct views at the team (2011) suggestions to heart and highlight
level of analysis. Whereas Seibert et al. ‘‘where are we going?’’ (p. 102) in the team
included structural empowerment with other empowerment literature.
antecedent variables into a category labeled
high-performance managerial practices, we
A brief review of the
hope that highlighting these two distinct con-
ceptualizations will solidify the differences empowerment literature
between the constructs and also, shed light on Initially, empowerment was introduced as an
how these two constructs relate to one another. individual-level construct (e.g., Conger &
Finally, while meta-analyses yield important Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Thomas
information about the magnitude and heteroge- & Velthouse, 1990) and grounded in work on
neity of study correlations, it cannot address the employee involvement (e.g., Lewin, 1947).
combined effects of different antecedents. Early work on individual empowerment was
Therefore, we go beyond meta-analysis results closely linked to motivational frameworks such
and use them as inputs for structural equation as the job characteristics model (Hackman &
modeling (SEM) to examine the unique and Oldham, 1980), and Bandura’s work on self-
combined influences of the antecedents on team efficacy (1977, 1982). As a result of these two
psychological empowerment, and thereby, on foundational literatures, empowerment came
team outcomes. This further enables us to to be conceptualized in two distinct ways:
assess the mediating role of psychological structural and psychological (cf. Leach, Wall,
empowerment as we examine both the direct & Jackson, 2003; Menon, 2001; Spreitzer,
and indirect effects of the antecedents on team 1995, 2008).
outcomes. This combined meta-analysis and Structural empowerment builds upon work
SEM approach permits a more encompassing centered on job design and job characteristics
test of the combined relationships than can be (Campion et al., 1993; Hackman & Oldham,
done in any single study. 1976, 1980) and, at its core, focuses on the
To summarize, in an effort to better under- transition of authority and responsibility from
stand the team psychological empowerment upper management to employees. Accordingly,
nomological network, we offer both meta- structural empowerment is concerned with the
analyses and SEM tests based on research actual transference of decision making and how
conducted over the last two decades. In the this can best be done such that benefits from
following section, we offer a concise review shifting authority and responsibility for certain
of the literature including a discussion of how tasks to employees are realized. In comparison,
team empowerment has been defined, concep- psychological empowerment, which has ties to
tualized, and operationalized. We follow this Bandura’s (1977, 1982) work on self-efficacy,
with specific research questions regarding is less concerned about the actual transition of
constructs that likely serve as antecedents to authority and responsibility, but instead focuses
team psychological empowerment, as well as on employee’s perceptions or cognitive states
outcomes. Next, we outline several potential regarding empowerment. Here, the key is that

individuals need to believe that they can per- conceptualization as the ‘‘team four-dimen-
form their work on their own and as such, sion’’ view of empowerment.
psychological empowerment can be defined in Using the recent adaptations to the input-
terms of motivational processes (Conger & process-outcome (IPO) model (e.g., Marks,
Kanungo, 1988). Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001), Kirkman and col-
leagues (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1997;
Kirkman, Tesluk, & Rosen, 2004) positioned
Team psychological team empowerment as an emergent state, ‘‘a
empowerment cognitive, motivational, and affective state of
With teams becoming more and more prevalent teams . . . that are typically dynamic in nature
in organizations, it is hardly surprising that the and vary as a function of team context, inputs,
empowerment construct has also been extended processes and outcomes’’ (Marks et al., 2001,
to, and examined, at the team level of analysis. p. 357). Other researchers have also advocated
Here, researchers argue that aggregation is this view, yet have employed different
appropriate given that empowerment appears to emphases and operationalizations. For exam-
be both isomorphic and homologous (Kirkman ple, while Hechanova-Alampay and Beehr
& Rosen, 1997; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). In (2001) view team psychological empowerment
other words, empowerment retains its same as an emergent state, they define it in terms of
basic meaning across individual and group members’ perceived authority and possessing
levels of analysis (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), responsibility for work outcomes. This two-
and that similar relationships hold across levels dimensional conceptualization (i.e., authority
of analysis (Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005). and responsibility) was first advocated by Hyatt
The recent work by Seibert et al. (2011) was the and Ruddy (1997) and has continued to be used
first to empirically show that these assertions within the team empowerment literature (e.g.,
hold for empowerment. Mathieu et al., 2006a) and hereafter is referred
to as the ‘‘two-dimension view.’’
As noted before, considerations of
Conceptualization and measurement of
empowerment at the team level of analysis
team psychological empowerment assume that the construct retains its basic
Given the widespread adoption of Spreitzer’s meaning at the individual and team level
(1995) four-dimensional psychological concep- (e.g., Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Seibert
tualization at the individual level of analysis, et al., 2011). However, there are different
Kirkman and Rosen (1999), advanced a similar means by which individual-level responses
view of empowerment at the team level which are aggregated to the team level. For exam-
has subsequently been widely used. In particu- ple, Chan’s (1998) framework discusses
lar, Kirkman and colleagues conceptualized both referent-shift consensus and additive
team psychological empowerment as consisting composition models. Both the ‘‘team four-
of four facets: (a) potency—a collective belief dimension’’ as well as the more general
by team members that they can be effective; ‘‘two-dimension’’ conceptualizations discussed
(b) meaningfulness—the tasks that the team previously are referent-shift approaches that
works on are important, valuable, and worth- focus on the team as a collective. In using this
while; (c) autonomy—the team has discretion approach, researchers assume homogeneity of
over their work; and (d) impact—the work perceptions within the team and accordingly
performed by the team is significant and must determine that the perceptions are in fact
advances organizational objectives. In the shared (Chen, Mathieu, & Bliese, 2004). While
following sections, we refer to this the majority of research that has considered

Maynard et al. 105
team psychological empowerment has utilized team empowerment is a product of situational

a referent-shift approach, our analysis also and contextual factors, in addition to the
includes nine studies that utilized an additive required (but not sufficient) condition of
composition model and indexed team psycho- structural empowerment.
logical empowerment as the average of individ- Notably, we have attempted to strike a bal-
ual team members’ perceived level of ance between the breadth and homogeneity of
individual empowerment. For example, Jung these antecedent categories. On the one hand, it
and Sosik (2002) measured team psychological is desirable to employ broad categories so as to
empowerment as the teams’ mean level of include a wide range of variables that have been
scores on Spreitzer’s (1995) individual-level considered in the original studies; on the other
empowerment scale which includes items such hand, the categories need to be sufficiently
as ‘‘I have significant autonomy in determining homogeneous such that they represent the same
how I do my job.’’ Given that research in other construct domain. So, for example, we have
domains has provided evidence that the type of classified different operationalizations of
composition model utilized results in differen- external managerial support (e.g., leader con-
tial effects (e.g., Arthur, Bell, & Edwards, sideration, charismatic leadership) into the
2007), we distinguish between the two same category by virtue of the fact that they all
referent-shift conceptualizations (e.g., ‘‘team represent characteristics of external leaders
four-dimension’’ and ‘‘two-dimension’’) and thought to enhance team psychological
research that has conceptualized team empow- empowerment (see Table 1 for details).
erment using an additive approach (e.g., ‘‘indi-
vidual four dimensions–aggregated to team Structural empowerment. As mentioned previ-
level’’). Therefore, we coded and tested the ously, the most proximal antecedent to team
measurement approach used in each study as psychological empowerment is structural
a potential moderating variable in the meta- empowerment. At its core, structural empow-
analyses. erment considers the effects resulting from
managers handing over a number of activities
such as scheduling, monitoring work, coordi-
Antecedents of team psychological
nating training, and conducting performance
empowerment appraisals to the team (e.g., Alper, Tjosvold, &
To date, research has considered inputs into an Law, 2000; Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, &
empowered state that are both proximal and Drasgow, 2000; Cook & Goff, 2002; Mills &
distal to the team. We start by considering Ungson, 2003). Lawler (1986, 1992) was one of
structural empowerment, as well as a number of the first to suggest that in order for employee
other factors that have been noted as important involvement to be effective, organizational
drivers of team psychological empowerment design elements needed to be transitioned to
and effectiveness (e.g., Campion et al., 1993; lower levels.
Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Shea & The argument for a relationship between
Guzzo, 1987). Namely, we include contextual structural and psychological empowerment is
antecedents: organizational support, external that the psychological empowerment state is
managerial support, and team competencies. likely to follow from organizational design
Along with structural empowerment, these features that facilitate this transference. This is
conditions or antecedents are the context that in line with prior work by Menon (2001) who
serves to create the setting within which per- recommended that both perspectives of
ceptions of psychological empowerment can empowerment (i.e., psychological and struc-
emerge. Therefore, the psychological state of tural) be integrated by considering structural

Table 1. Team psychological empowerment: Antecedent and consequences categories.
Structural empowerment
Autonomy Participation in decision making
Job formalization (reversed)
Organizational support
Organizational climate Interdepartmental connectedness
Work group support Organizational rewards
Organizational influence Organizational direction
Organizational structure/rules Organization decentralization/formalization
External managerial support
Initiating structure Leader consideration
Leader team orientation Leader encourages regarding self-management
Transformation leadership Leader experience
Leader span of control Leader capability
Leader credibility Leader creativity
Leader confidence Follower-centered leadership
Visionary leadership Principled leadership
Charismatic leadership
Team competencies
Team tenure Organizational tenure
Team expertise
Team performance
Effectiveness Productivity
Quality Proactivity
New product performance/innovation Customer reactions
Decision-making effectiveness
Team members’ affective reactions
Team commitment Organizational commitment
Team organizational citizenship behavior Job satisfaction
Quality of work life Impact
Group satisfaction Involvement/effort
Growth satisfaction Satisfaction with supervisor
Exhaustion (reversed) Stress (reversed)
Strain (reversed) Commitment to remain
Absenteeism (reversed) Creativity
Unsafe behaviors (reversed) Safety accidents (reversed)
Ability to deal with risk
empowerment as an antecedent to psychologi- structural and psychological empowerment. For

cal empowerment. The underlying thought example, Mathieu et al. (2006a) obtained a
being that when individuals or teams are given, significant correlation between empowering
through the structure of their work or task, organizational structural features and team
increased participation in decision making and members’ shared perceptions of authority and
overall responsibility, psychological empow- responsibility. Similarly, Kirkman and Rosen
erment should be enhanced (e.g., Guzzo, Yost, (1999) found support for a positive relationship
Campbell, & Shea, 1993; Hackman, 1987; between ‘‘production/service responsibilities’’
Manz & Sims, 1993; Susman, 1976). and a composite measure of the ‘‘team four-
While not numerous, there have been dimension’’ of psychological empowerment.
examinations of the relationship between Accordingly, based on the theoretical

Maynard et al. 107
justification and the evidence presented, we Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Zaccaro,
introduce the following research question: Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Not surprisingly,
work on team empowerment has been inter-
RQ1: Is structural empowerment positively ested in the role of leadership when teams
related to team psychological empowerment? assume the responsibility for their work and
functioning (e.g., Hechanova-Alampay &
Organizational support. Organizational support
Beehr, 2001). In fact, research focused on the
has been noted as an essential ingredient in
role of external leadership and team psycho-
numerous team effectiveness models (e.g.,
logical empowerment has found that while it
Hackman, 1987). This form of support is
still plays a role, it is a very different one
provided to the team by individuals or groups
(Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, &
outside of the team’s boundary, but within
Ammeter, 2004).
the broader organization. Organizational
For example, Manz and Sims (1987) sug-
support is an intentionally broad construct
gest that leaders of self-managed teams have
that can include actual resources that the
to lead ‘‘others to lead themselves’’ (p. 119).
team is able to obtain from other entities
Similarly, both Kirkman and Rosen (1999)
within an organization, communication and
and Jung and Sosik (2002) posit that external
coordination with other teams, as well as the
leaders need to take a more transformational
overall organizational climate. Specifically,
approach. Ahearn et al. (2004) contend that
Spreitzer (1996) suggested that when teams
leaders of empowered teams become more
have access to resources from other teams or
of a coach or facilitator and thus, become pri-
departments within the organization, as well
marily concerned with ‘‘eliminating barriers,
as from outside the organization, team psy-
including the removal of structural impedi-
chological empowerment is enhanced.
ments’’ (p. 310). However, regardless of the
Mathieu et al. (2006a) found that multiteam
specific leadership style employed, research
cooperation had a positive, significant rela-
indicates that external managerial support of
tionship with team psychological empower-
some nature remains essential for team and
ment. Such a relationship is similar to
organizational success (e.g., Druskat &
Druskat and Kayes’ (2000) contention that
Wheeler, 2003; Manz & Sims, 1987; Sims
team performance is enhanced when mem-
& Manz, 1984). We suggest that, in part, this
bers develop ‘‘reciprocal friendships and
relationship is attributable to the impact that
alliances with other teams . . . ’’ (p. 205).
leadership has on the development of an
Finally, Kirkman and Rosen (1999) provided
empowered state within the team. In support
evidence that when teams possess socio-
of this, Cohen (1990) showed that team
political support within the organization, and
members’ feelings of authority and responsi-
are able to coordinate with other teams, they
bility are influenced by the extent to which
experience psychological empowerment to a
top managers retain control over operational
greater extent. Accordingly, we examine
decisions. Accordingly, we echo Kirkman
whether:
and Rosen’s (1999) suggestion that team
RQ2: Is organizational support positively members will experience team psychological
related to team psychological empowerment? empowerment to a greater extent when their
managers ‘‘exhibit encouraging leader
External managerial support. The role of lead- behaviors . . . ’’ (p. 60). Stated formally,
ership has a long history within the organi-
zational team literature (e.g., Kozlowski & RQ3: Is external managerial support positively
Bell, 2003; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; related to team psychological empowerment?

Team competencies. The final antecedent con- RQ4: Are team competencies positively
siders teams’ relative competencies. This cate- related to team psychological empowerment?
gory includes not only members’ knowledge,
skills, and abilities (KSAs), but also their
longevity or tenure within the organization as
Outcomes of team psychological
well as within their team. It is not surprising
that there are numerous studies suggesting that
empowerment
the extent to which teams are comprised of As with the conceptualizations and antecedents,
members with higher skills, functioning should there are a large number of outcomes that have
be enhanced. In support of this, Devine and been linked to implementing empowered, self-
Philips (2001) provide meta-analysis evidence managed, and autonomous teams. Despite the
that team cognitive ability predicts team perfor- range of outcomes, they appear to coalesce
mance. In terms of team longevity or tenure, the around two broad categories—performance and
underlying logic is that to the extent individuals members’ affective reactions (e.g., Hackman &
have been members of their respective organi- Morris, 1975; Mathieu & Gilson, 2012).
zations and teams, they are more likely to have
gained valuable experience, insights, and other Team performance. Team performance consists
sources of tacit knowledge (e.g., Arrow & of effectiveness, productivity, customer satis-
McGrath, 1995; Chen, 2005). faction, and innovation. Psychological
Together KSAs and experience levels empowerment increases team performance
should enable teams to be more autonomous, because possessing a sense of ownership results
take on more responsibility and authority, in team members having greater levels of ini-
generate enhanced potency, and be motivated tiative (e.g., Spreitzer, Noble, Mishra, &
to perform more meaningful and impactful Cooke, 1999). Spreitzer et al. (1999) provided
activities. In terms of research that has evidence of a significant, positive relationship
examined such a relationship, Hempel, between psychological empowerment and team
Zhang, and Han (2012) recently found sup- performance. Additionally, empowered teams
port for a positive relationship between team that possess the knowledge required for a given
tenure and psychological empowerment. task should make better decisions hence have
Similarly, while not the focus of their study, better performance (e.g., Latham, Winters, &
Liao, Toya, Lepak, and Hong (2009) found a Locke, 1994). Mathieu et al. (2006a) demon-
positive (although not significant) relation- strate a positive relationship between team
ship between team member human capital psychological empowerment and two measures
(skills and expertise) and psychological of performance in their study of empowered
empowerment. Based on these preliminary service technician teams. Finally, Kirkman and
findings, we are interested in assessing whether colleagues’ (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Kirk-
team competencies will have a positive rela- man, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004) research
tionship with team psychological empower- suggests that psychological empowerment has a
ment because teams comprised of more skilled positive impact on team performance in both
and more senior members should be more face-to-face and virtual contexts. Essentially,
willing to accept greater levels of authority and empowered team members are better able to
responsibility. Additionally, with enhanced align their capabilities, interests, and availabil-
skill levels and experience, such teams should ity with task demands thus reaping performance
have higher levels of team efficacy and com- benefits through better leveraging of their
petency. Accordingly, we will consider the human capital. Second, being empowered gen-
following research question: erates higher levels of employee motivation,

Maynard et al. 109
which in turn, has long been seen as an essential empowerment. Accordingly, we are interested in
ingredient for team success (e.g., Hackman & answering the following research question:
Morris, 1975). Therefore, we consider the
following question: RQ6: Is team psychological empowerment posi-
tively related to members’ affective reactions?
RQ5: Is team psychological empowerment
positively related to team performance?
Team members’ affective reactions. While research

Moderators of empowerment relationships
has increasingly emphasized the need to exam- By examining the research questions noted
ine the effect of psychological empowerment on previously, our study provides a meta-analytic
team performance, there is also a robust litera- review of conditions that give rise to an empow-
ture suggesting the need to consider members’ erment state as well as the consequences of such
affective reactions (e.g., Mathieu et al., 2008). a state on both team performance and members’
Accordingly, we are interested in assessing affective reactions. Next, we code for: (a) the
whether team psychological empowerment has a type of team being studied, (b) how psychologi-
positive impact on team members’ affective cal empowerment was measured, and (c) team
reactions. In support of such a relationship, size to consider these variables as moderators
Seibert, Silver, and Randolph (2004) evidenced of the relationship examined before.
a positive relationship between team psycholo-
gical empowerment and job satisfaction. In fact, Team type. Team type has often been discussed
such a relationship has been documented by as a salient moderator of team-related phe-
several researchers within the extant literature nomena. Accordingly, we test whether the
(e.g., Gerstner, 1998; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). relationships for team empowerment differ
Whether team emergent states are consid- depending on the type of team studied. The
ered antecedents, correlates, or consequences of majority of samples included in our analysis
team interactions is usually, in large part, are service-based teams (N ¼ 38) (e.g., Chen,
determined by the research design employed Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007;
(Mathieu & Gilson, 2012). Psychological states Gilson, Shalley, & Milne, 2002). An additional
such as empowerment require some period of 18 samples focused on teams that were a mix
time and experience to develop and to crystal- of service and manufacturing teams (e.g.,
lize, particularly if they describe collective Chen & Klimoski, 2003; Thamhain, 2004),
properties (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). In this while 15 involved teams that were entirely
regard, states are dynamic entities that change focused on manufacturing (e.g., Kim & Lee,
over time. For example, team efficacy has been 1995; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Of the
shown to be a significant predictor of subsequent remaining samples, six were student teams
team performance, yet such performance will (e.g., Langfred, 2007; Shapiro, Chen, Nangia,
also impact future states of efficacy (Stajkovic, Edinger, & Farh, 2008; Sivasubramaniam,
Lee, & Nyberg, 2009). Whether efficacy is an Murry, Avolio, & Jung, 2002), and two were
antecedent or outcome is a function of its governmental teams (e.g., Langfred, 2000a).
dynamic quality and when it is measured relative The benefits of team psychological
to other variables. For the present application, empowerment hinge, to some extent, on the
we only categorized team members’ affective premise that when members have direct control
reactions as criterion if they were depicted as over how their work is performed, they are
such by the authors of the original studies or better able to align their efforts and outcomes.
were measured after team psychological Therefore, we are interested in exploring

whether team type impacts the relationships measure of empowerment, as compared to the
involving psychological empowerment. While ‘‘individual four dimensions–aggregated to
we do not propose specific directional hypoth- team level.’’ This follows from an alignment
eses, we could speculate that relationships of the level of theory and level of measurement
involving psychological empowerment may be for aggregate constructs (cf. Chen et al., 2004).
stronger among service and manufacturing Furthermore, to date, no work has contrasted
teams, as compared to other types. This follows whether operationalizing team psychological
from the fact that these teams deal more directly empowerment as ‘‘two-dimension’’ versus
with, and tend to have greater control over their ‘‘four-dimension’’ conceptions has an impact
task environment, and therefore, should benefit on the underlying relationships with antece-
more from psychological empowerment (cf. dents and outcomes. Therefore, we introduced
Tesluk & Mathieu, 1999). To assess this, we the following research question:
pose the following question:
RQ8: Does the operationalization of team
RQ7: Does team type moderate the relation- psychological empowerment moderate the
ships between psychological empowerment and relationships between psychological empower-
the antecedents and outcomes examined here? ment and the antecedents and outcomes
examined here?
Operationalization of team psychological Team size. The final moderator that we inves-
empowerment. As introduced earlier, there are tigate is team size. This construct has been
various definitions and operationalizations considered in numerous organizational studies
used by researchers to illustrate the meaning of and has been found to impact both team
empowerment. Accordingly, we coded each dynamics and performance (e.g., Guzzo et al.,
sample in terms of how the authors measured 1993; Hackman, 2002; Hirschfeld & Bernerth,
team psychological empowerment. Of the 79 2008; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Zaccaro, Blair,
unique samples included, 41 operationalized Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995). However, prior
empowerment as psychological while 38 research has not fully considered the effect of
studies indexed empowerment as a structural team size on the underlying relationships
variable. Of those that measured psychological between team psychological empowerment and
empowerment, 19 utilized the ‘‘two-dimension’’ various antecedents and outcomes. In an
measure (e.g., Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003; attempt to address the effect that team size may
Seibert et al., 2004), whereas 13 utilized the have, we present this research question:
‘‘team four-dimension’’ approach (e.g., Kirk-
man, Tesluk, & Rosen, 2001, 2004). Nine stud- RQ9: Does team size moderate the relationships
ies measured team empowerment as ‘‘individual between psychological empowerment and the
four dimensions–aggregated to team level’’ (e.g., antecedents and outcomes examined here?
Douglas, 1994; Silver, 2000).
Given this variety in operationalization, we Method
were particularly interested in assessing
whether the methods used to measure team
Sample
psychological empowerment altered the A number of search techniques were employed
underlying relationships between empower- to maximize the likelihood of identifying
ment and various antecedents and outcomes. empirical research related to team empower-
Again, while we do not provide specific ment. We began by entering a variety of terms
directional hypotheses, we could anticipate related to empowerment (i.e., ‘‘team’’ and:
higher correlations for any team-focused ‘‘empowerment,’’ ‘‘self-managed,’’ ‘‘self-

Maynard et al. 111
management,’’ and ‘‘autonomous’’) into (2004). In the case where a study used multiple
electronic databases (e.g., ABI Inform, Busi- samples, each sample was included as a sepa-
ness Source Premier, Psych INFO, and Web of rate entry as long as it met the other inclusion
Science). Additionally, a manual search of the criteria. Using these criteria, our final sample
most relevant journals (e.g., Academy of consisted of 79 unique empirical samples com-
Management Journal, Journal of Applied prising 6,297 teams. While over 2,000 studies
Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal were initially examined based on our keyword
of Organizational Behavior, Leadership searches, the vast majority were excluded
Quarterly, and Personnel Psychology) helped because they did not examine empowerment
to identify articles that did not appear in the at the team level or they did not actually mea-
electronic searches. Next, a legacy search, sure the construct. Complete citations for these
which involves ‘‘backtracking’’ an article by studies can be found in the reference section
its references, helped to identify more articles. called out with an asterisk (*).
In an attempt to also include unpublished A codebook was developed based on the
studies, we searched national conference pro- variables of interest for this review. We first
grams (e.g., Academy of Management, Society examined the definitions of empowerment and
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology) coded each study based on whether they mea-
using the same search terms as noted before. sured empowerment as: (a) the definition of
The final search technique was to contact empowerment proposed by Spreitzer (1995)
researchers who work in the area of team ‘‘individual four dimensions–aggregated to
empowerment and ask them to provide works team level’’, (b) the Kirkman and Rosen (1999)
that are either in press or under review. In sum, ‘‘team four-dimension’’ measure, or (c) a more
we identified a total of 2,221 relevant citations. general ‘‘two-dimension’’ measure of psycho-
logical empowerment as an emergent state
representing the team’s collective belief that it
Inclusion criteria possesses the authority and responsibility over
We next created decision rules regarding key facets of its work domain (e.g., Hyatt &
which articles to include in the analysis. The Ruddy, 1997). Next, using the IPO framework
first provision was that the article needed to be as our guide we developed categories of inputs
empirical and provide correlation data that (structural empowerment, organizational sup-
could be analyzed using meta-analytic tech- port, external managerial support, and team
niques. We had no stipulations on date of pub- competencies) that were further subdivided to
lication, nationality of sample, or language. represent the various facets captured in the lit-
For a study to be included, ‘‘teams’’ or erature. Finally, outcomes were initially
‘‘groups’’ had to be the indicated level of anal- divided into team performance and members’
ysis. In addition, some form of empowerment affective reaction, and then further subdivided
(structural or psychological) had to be mea- such that, for example team performance could
sured. A final criterion was that each effect be categorized as: (a) effectiveness, (b) pro-
size needed to reflect a unique sample. That ductivity, (c) quality, (d) customer assessments
is, an article that used multiple measures of job (satisfaction/reaction), and (e) decision-making
performance from a single sample could only effectiveness. Similarly, team members’ affec-
be entered into the database once. When tive reactions were further divided into team
authors did report multiple performance out- (i.e., team satisfaction); organizational (i.e.,
comes we averaged the correlates to obtain the organizational commitment); and general
effect size, a practice consistent with the affective outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction). The
guidelines provided by Hunter and Schmidt codebook categories are shown in Table 1.

We coded team type (i.e., service, manu- identified four outliers. We returned to these
facturing, mixed, student, or government), articles to see if there were coding errors and
demographic characteristics (i.e., sex, age, in all cases, found no coding or transcription
education levels), information pertaining to the errors and therefore, these effect sizes were
team (i.e., number of teams included in the eliminated from the data set. While each rela-
study, team size, and team tenure), and task tionship examined had no more than one out-
type (i.e., contrived, ongoing, project/task lier, we did run the analyses with and without
force). In the event that a given sample the outliers and found no change in effect sizes.
appeared to be used in multiple publications to In fact, when outliers were included, there was
address different substantive issues, we made no change in the statistical significance or
sure to only extract the relevant correlations direction of any relationships tested.
once. In the next step, applicable data (sample
size, reliabilities, and effect sizes) from each
study were classified by two pairs of coders. Analytic procedures
Within each pair, the individual coders classified We employed a Hunter and Schmidt (2004)
the variables independently. Once coding was technique where inputs into the meta-analysis
completed, the research pairs came together to include effect sizes (correlations), sample sizes,
compare their respective categorizations. Initial and reliabilities. Uncorrected effect sizes were
intercoder agreement across all coded effect sizes first adjusted for variation in sample sizes to
was 90%. Research pairs jointly made decisions arrive at a weighted mean estimation of the cor-
on any variables where independent assessments relation and then, the effect sizes were cor-
resulted in disagreements. When discrepancies rected for unreliability in the measures. We
could not be resolved within the coding pairs, the present both the corrected and raw correlations
four coders would discuss such variables and a in the results. When complete information was
classification was arrived at collectively. available on reliabilities, each effect size
Finally, in an effort to strengthen the relia- was corrected individually. However, when
bility of the variable classifications, the four we encountered missing reliability information,
coders periodically verified their coding by we used the average reliability of that particular
reviewing the classification of variables from scale or construct (i.e., the method of artifact-
a random set of studies. distribution meta-analysis; Hunter & Schmidt,
2004). In circumstances where a construct was
assessed with multiple measures, we averaged
Outlier detection the correlations so as to avoid double counting.
We used Huffcutt and Arthur’s (1995) sample We fit a series of nested structural models to
adjusted meta-analytic deviancy (SAMD) sta- the data using MPlus 6.1 (Muthen & Muthen,
tistic for identifying outliers with corrections 2007) to test the hypothesized model depicted in
proposed in Beal, Corey, and Dunlap (2002). Figure 1. We permitted the disturbance terms for
The original SAMD was biased slightly due to team performance and team members’ affective
the nonnormality of correlations that result reactions to correlate to compensate for any
from being constrained to an absolute value of common omitted causes. Given that the input
1.0. Beal et al. (2002) recommend the Fisher correlations for this analysis were meta-analytic
Z as the effect size and greater caution when estimates which incorporate corrections for sta-
using the proposed cutoff values (i.e., the .05 tistical artifacts, we treated them as observed
level). We calculated SAMD statistics for each scores with no unreliability. To gauge model fit,
analysis with the Fisher Z as the effect size and we report the standardized root mean square resi-
used critical values at the .01 level. We dual (SRMR) and the comparative fit index (CFI;

Maynard et al. 113
Figure 1. Results of hypothesized structural model.

Note. N ¼ 1,164.
*** p < .001.
Bentler, 1990). We also report chi-square values the various correlates. In line with the recommen-
that provide a statistical basis for comparing the dations of Hunter and Schmidt (2004), we report
relative fit of nested models and the root mean the number of samples (k), sample size (n),
error of approximation (RMSEA). We adopted weighted mean observed correlation (r), the cor-
the thresholds for model fit advocated by Mathieu relation corrected for unreliability (rc), the
and Taylor (2006): models with CFI values < .90 observed variance (Var(r)), the 80% credibility
and SRMR values > .10 are deficient, those with interval, and the 95% confidence interval for the
CFI .90 to < .95 and SRMR > .08 to .10 are observed correlation. As detailed in Table 2, three
acceptable, and those with CFI .95 and SRMR of the four correlations between the antecedents
.08 are excellent. We used p < .05 as our alpha and team psychological empowerment were sta-
level for all tests. Following recommendations put tistically significant (team competencies being
forth by Viswesvaran and Ones (1995), we used the exception). Specifically, the results supported
the harmonic mean (i.e., 1,164) for all model tests. significant relations between psychological
empowerment and its antecedents: structural
empowerment (rc ¼ .447), organizational support
Results (rc ¼ .471), and external managerial support (rc ¼
.550), however the correlation with team compe-
Overall results of the antecedent–team
tencies was not significant (rc ¼ .001). In addi-
psychological empowerment relationships tion, empowerment was significantly related to
Table 2 provides the meta-analytic results both team performance (rc ¼ .304) and team
between team psychological empowerment and members’ affective reactions (rc ¼ .502).

Table 2. Meta-analytic summary of team psychological empowerment antecedents and consequences

relationship.
% of variance
k n r rc var(r) 80% CV 95% CI (r) SE
Antecedents :
Structural empowerment 5 513 .381*** .447 .033 .174; .587 .221; .540 21.7%
Organizational support 9 1107 .390*** .471 .010 .308; .472 .325; .456 59.0%
External managerial support 20 1734 .470*** .550 .029 .280; .659 .395; .544 24.5%
Team competencies 4 491 .010 .001 .008 .028; .009 .100; .080 97.5%
Consequences:
Team performance 34 2537 .263*** .304 .027 .103; .423 .207; .319 42.9%
Team members’ affective 15 1436 .444*** .502 .015 .332; .556 .383; .505 47.0%
reactions
Note. k ¼ number of correlations meta-analyzed; n ¼ total number of groups; r ¼ sample-size-weighted mean observed
correlation; rc ¼ sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation corrected for unreliability; var(r) ¼ observed variance;
80% CV ¼ 80% credibility interval around rc; 95% CI(r) ¼ 95% confidence interval around rc; % of variance SE ¼ percentage
of variance attributable to sampling error.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Tests of moderation appears to play only a minimal role. In fact, the

only relationship that team type seems to
Given the heterogeneity of effect sizes found in
moderate is that between external managerial
five of the six meta-analyses, we tested several
support and team psychological empowerment.
moderators as outlined earlier. As reported in
Specifically, the relationship between external
Tables 3–5, we provide three tests of modera-
managerial support and team psychological
tion, the Q-statistic (a measure of heterogene-
empowerment was significantly (p < .001)
ity), the 80% credibility interval, and the
stronger for service teams (rc ¼ .632) as com-
percentage of variance attributable to sampling
pared to mixed teams (rc ¼ .385). Additionally,
error. Significant Q-statistics (Hedges & Olken,
this relationship was marginally (p < .10)
1985), credibility interval widths in excess of
stronger for service teams (rc ¼ .632) as
.11 (Whitener, 1990), and proportions of var-
compared to manufacturing teams (rc ¼ .303).
iance attributable to sampling error less than
In sum, however, it appears that team type
75% (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) are all indica-
accounts for little of the observed variances in
tors of potential moderators. We tested two
these meta-analyses.
categorical moderators (team type and empow-
We next tested whether the means by which
erment type) and one continuous moderator
team empowerment was operationalized mod-
(team size). For the categorical moderators,
erated the observed relationships. As detailed in
we divided samples into their respective groups
Table 4, only one antecedent variable (e.g.,
and conducted an omnibus and post hoc
external managerial support) had a sufficient
between groups test (Q) to detect differences.
number of effect sizes to test whether empow-
For continuous variables, we used metaregres-
erment type moderated the relationship, and it
sion and the significance of the beta weight
did not evidence a significant difference. In
served as the test of moderation (Geyskens,
terms of the consequences of team psychological
Krishnan, Steenkamp, & Cunha, 2009).
empowerment, both team performance and team
We first examined team types as a potential
members’ affective reactions had a sufficient
moderator. As shown in Table 3, team type
number of effect sizes to assess the impact of

Table 3. Team type as a moderator of empowerment relationships.
Team type k n r rc var(r) 80% CV (rc) 95% CI (r) % of variance SE Between groups (Q)
Antecedents:
Structural empowerment1 Mixed 2 149 .196* .267 .018 .104; .288 .011; .381 70.9
Service 2 311 .445*** .496 .023 .272; .619 .238; .653 18.5 1.20
Organizational supports Mixed 4 406 .336*** .411 .008 N/A .250; .422 100%
Service 5 701 .422*** .507 .009 .344; .500 .341; .503 56.7% 1.54
External mgr. support Service 13 1213 .539*** .632 .014 .421; .657 .475; .603 39.3% 14.00***
Manuf. 3 159 .272* .303 .058 .012; .533 .000; .545 28.5% Serv .> Mixed***
Mixed 4 362 .324*** .385 .013 .247; .400 .214; .433 71.6% Serv .> Manuf.y
Consequences:
Student 2 105 .343*** .397 .006 N/A .239; .448 100%

2
Team performance Service 19 1418 .235*** .274 .024 .093; .377 .165; .305 49.8%
Manuf. 4 208 .317*** .362 .001 N/A .289; .345 100%
Mixed 8 790 .283*** .323 .038 .063; .503 .147; .418 22.7% 1.56
Service 5 622 .470*** .530 .012 .361; .579 .374; .567 40.5%

Team members’ affective reactions Manuf. 5 250 .467*** .545 .024 .329; .604 .331; .603 51.9%
Mixed 5 564 .404*** .454 .010 .323; .485 .316; .493 61.1% .797
Note. k ¼ number of correlations meta-analyzed; n ¼ total number of groups; r ¼ sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation; rc ¼ sample-size-weighted mean
observed correlation corrected for unreliability; var(r) ¼ observed variance; 80% CV ¼ 80% credibility interval around rc; 95% CI(r) ¼ 95% confidence interval around rc; %
of variance SE ¼ percentage of variance attributable to sampling error; Q ¼ Cochran’s Q statistic, a measure of heterogeneity.
yp < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
115
116
Table 4. Empowerment type as a moderator of team empowerment relationships.
Empowerment 80% CV % of variance Between groups

type k n r rc var(r) (rc) 95% CI (r) SE (Q)
Antecedents: A 12 1264 .485*** .579 .030 .284; .687 .387; .584 18.4%
External managerial support B 6 373 .461*** .505 .007 N/A .393; .529 100%
C 2 97 .295 .349 .061 .028; .562 -.047; .638 28.8% .533
Consequences:
3
Team performance A 14 1224 .189*** .233 .013 .127; .251 .129; .249 82.2%
B 12 848 .369*** .406 .032 .182; .555 .268; .470 33.6% 7.45*
C 9 513 .267*** .306 .020 .177; .358 .174; .361 75.5% B>A
Team members’ affective reactions A 9 831 .385*** .444 .012 .303; .468 .314; .457 65.9%
4
B 4 380 .559*** .620 .005 .535; .584 .487; .631 93.2% 6.53*
C 3 273 .507*** .571 .012 .413; .602 .386; .629 52.8% B>A
Note. A ¼ ‘‘two-dimension’’ measure; B ¼ ‘‘team four-dimension’’ view; C ¼ ‘‘individual four dimensions–aggregated to team level’’; k ¼ number of correlations meta-
analyzed; n ¼ total number of groups; r ¼ sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation; rc ¼ sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation corrected for
unreliability; var(r) ¼ observed variance; 80% CV ¼ 80% credibility interval around rc; 95% CI(r) ¼ 95% confidence interval around rc; % of variance SE ¼ percentage of

variance attributable to sampling error; Q ¼ Cochran’s Q statistic, a measure of heterogeneity.
*
p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Maynard et al. 117
Table 5. Team size as a moderator of team empowerment relationships.5
Relation k n Avg. team Size (b) SE
Antecedents:
Structural empowerment 3 405 .911*** .271
Organizational supports 7 900 .028y .015
External managerial support 15 1342 .012** .004
Team competencies 3 266 .034y .019
Consequences:
Team performance 26 1938 .022*** .006
Team members’ affective reactions 10 978 .002 .005
Note. k ¼ included studies; n ¼ sample size; b ¼ meta-analytically derived unstandardized coefficient; SE ¼ standard error.
yp < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
type. As shown in Table 4, the relationship Additionally, both organizational supports

between team psychological empowerment and (b ¼ .028, SE ¼ .015, p < .10) and team com-
performance was significantly higher for the petencies (b ¼ .034, SE ¼ .019, p < .10)
‘‘team four-dimension’’ measure (rc ¼ .406) as become marginally weaker predictors of team
compared to the ‘‘two-dimension’’ measure psychological empowerment as team size
(rc ¼ .233). Additionally, the relationship increases. In terms of the outcome relationships,
between team psychological empowerment and team psychological empowerment appears
members’ affective reactions was also signifi- to have a stronger effect on performance
cantly higher for the ‘‘team four-dimension’’ (b ¼ .022, SE ¼ .006, p < .001) as team size
(rc ¼ .620) as compared to the ‘‘two-dimension’’ increases. In sum, it appears that while there is
measure (rc ¼ .444). In sum, the moderator no general pattern associated with team size,
effects of empowerment type were stronger for there are some specific relationships that are
the relationships between the four- (versus the moderated by team size.
two-) dimensional version of team psychological
empowerment and outcomes.
Finally, we examined team size as a mod- SEM model tests
erator. Using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.0 Using the meta-analysis derived correlations,
(Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, we tested the hypothesized model shown in Fig-
2005), we used metaregression equations ure 1. Specifically, we created the matrix of
reported in Hedges and Olken (1985) and meta-analytic correlations reported in Table 6
Hedges and Vevea (1998) to test if team size from the correlations reported in the 79 samples
influenced effect sizes. The results of the metar- described earlier. These include the correlations
egressions are presented in Table 5. Of the six involving team psychological empowerment, as
relationships that had sufficient effect sizes to well as correlations among the antecedent and
test for moderation, three were statistically outcomes. Notably, the hypothesized SEM
significant. In terms of the antecedents, while model depicts team psychological empower-
structural empowerment (b ¼ .911, SE ¼ .271, ment as fully mediating the antecedents on the
p < .001) becomes a stronger predictor of team outcome variables. Consequently, we included
psychological empowerment as team a series of SEM models to test various facets
size increases, external managerial supports of the mediational framework as outlined by
(b ¼ .012, SE ¼ .004, p < .01) become Mathieu and Taylor (2006). The results of these
a weaker predictor as team size increases. tests are summarized in Table 7.

The findings from the hypothesized model members’ affective reactions, both collectively
are shown in Figure 2. The overall model (Model 3) and individually (Models 3A–3D).
evidenced an acceptable fit (w2[8] ¼ 97.11, Model 2, containing the combined direct
p < .001; CFI ¼ .933; SRMR ¼ .047), and each effects on team performance evidenced a sig-
of the hypothesized antecedents exhibited significant improvement as compared to the fully
nificant unique effects with team psychological mediated model (Dw2[4] ¼ 28.80, p < .001).
empowerment (structural empowerment: b ¼ .29, Testing the individual direct effects revealed
p < .001; organizational supports: b ¼ .22, that adding a direct path from structural
p < .001; external managerial support: empowerment to team performance would
b ¼ .43, p < .001; and team competencies: yield an improved model fit (Model 2A, Dw2[1]
b ¼ .17, p < .001). Notably, although the ¼ 14.91, p < .01). Moreover, adding a direct
influence of team competencies was statisti- path from team competencies to team perfor-
cally significant, it was negative—opposite of mance would produce an improved model fit
the anticipated direction. Collectively the four (Model 2D, Dw2[1] ¼ 17.90, p < .01), although
antecedents accounted for 47% of the team neither of the other two antecedents exhibited a
psychological empowerment variance. In turn, significant direct effect with performance.
team psychological empowerment illustrated Model 3, containing the combined direct
significant relationships with team performance effects on team members’ affective reactions
(b ¼ .30, p < .001) and team members’ affec- did evidence a significant improvement as
tive reactions (b ¼ .50, p < .001), accounting compared to the fully mediated model (Dw2[4]
for 9% and 25% of the criterion variance, ¼ 58.82, p < .001). Testing the individual direct
respectively. Notably, the performance and effects revealed that structural empowerment
affective reactions disturbance terms were also (Model 3A, Dw2[1] ¼ 1.61, ns) did not have a
significantly correlated (c ¼ .21, p < .001). significant direct effect. In contrast, organiza-
The hypothesized model, in effect, implies tional support (Model 3B, Dw2[1] ¼ 48.11,
that team psychological empowerment fully p < .001), external managerial support (Model
mediates the influences of the exogenous vari- 3C, Dw2[1] ¼ 7.40, p < .01), and team compe-
ables on team performance and team members’ tencies (Model 3D, Dw2[1] ¼ 6.96, p < .01),
affective reactions. We tested the significance each exhibited a significant improvement, as
of the indirect effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood, compared to the fully mediated model.
Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002) using MPlus Accordingly, we fit a revised SEM model that
6.1 (Muthen & Muthen, 2007) and found that included the two significant direct influences
each was significant for both criteria (see on team performance and the three significant
Table 8). Again, however, given the negative direct effects related to team members’ affec-
influence of team competencies on team psy- tive reactions. Notably, with both organiza-
chological empowerment, the corresponding tional supports and team competencies in the
indirect effects are opposite of what we antici- model, external managerial support failed to
pated. While encouraging, these results do not contribute significantly to the prediction of
preclude potential significant direct effects as team members’ affective responses (b ¼ .02,
well. Accordingly, we fit additional nested ns) and was, therefore, dropped from the final
models to test for direct effects which are sum- revision model.
marized in Table 7. First, we added direct effects The final revised model, shown in Figure 2,
from the four antecedents to team performance, exhibited excellent model fit (w2[4] ¼ 8.11,
both collectively (Model 2) and individually ns; CFI ¼ .997; SRMR ¼ .012), and natu-
(Models 2A–2D). Second, we added direct rally was a significant improvement over the
effects from the four antecedents to team fully mediated model (Model 4, Dw2[5] ¼

Table 6. Correlation matrix of antecedents and outcomes.
Structural External mgr Team Team Team members’

empowerment Org. supports support competencies performance affective reactions
Structural empowerment –
Org. supports .28, .33 (.19; .36) –

(11, 955, .02)
External mgr. support .23, .26 (.12; .35) .36, .42 (.22; .50) –
(10, 1075, .04) (10, 1070, .05)
Team competencies .12, .14 (.01; .11, .12 (.02; .19) .22, .25 (.17; .28) –
.25)y
(8, 705, .03) (5, 478, .01) (2, 196, .001)
Team performance .20, .23 (.14; .26) .19, .22 (.12 .26) .20, .22 (.12; .28) .13, .14 (.05; .21) –
(32, 2737, .03) (14, 1271, .02) (22, 1929, .03) (11, 980, .02)
Team members’ affective reactions .19, .22 (.10; .28) .35, .40 (.29; .41) .31, .35 (.16; .45) .08, .10 (.05; .22)y .32, .36 (.25; .40) –

(17, 1313, .04) (8, 673, .01) (13, 1168, .07) (7, 568, .03) (21, 1512, .03)
Note. Mean correlations are listed first followed by corrected correlations in italics. Values in parentheses following correlations indicate the lower and upper bound of 95% confidence
interval of mean correlation. Values in parentheses below correlations indicate k (number of studies), N (sample size), and var(r) (observed variance). All correlations are significant at p
< .05 (95% confidence interval does not include 0) except that marked by a dagger (y).
119
Table 7. Summary of alternative structural equation models.
Model DF w2 CFI SRMR
1. Fully mediated 8 97.11*** .933 .047

2. Partially mediated – Performance 4 68.31*** .952 .036
a. Structural empowerment 7 82.20*** .944 .042
b. Organizational support 7 95.92*** .934 .045
c. External managerial support 7 94.19*** .935 .045
d. Team competencies 7 79.21*** .946 .038
3. Partially mediated – Member affective reactions 4 38.29*** .974 .033
a. Structural empowerment 7 95.50** .934 .048
b. Organizational support 7 49.00*** .969 .036
c. External managerial support 7 89.71* .938 .043
d. Team competencies 7 90.15* .938 .043
4. Revised model 4 8.11 .997 .012
Note. DF ¼ degrees of freedom; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; SRMR ¼ standardized root mean squared residual; N ¼ 1,164.
Underlined values differ significantly (p < .05) from the fully mediated model.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Figure 2. Revised structural model.

Note. N ¼ 1,164.
**p < .01; ***p < .001.
89.00, p < .001). A summary of the indirect 8. Several interesting findings emerged from
and total effects of each exogenous variable, this analysis. First, not only did organiza-
as related to each criterion, appears in Table tional supports relate significantly with team

Maynard et al. 121
Table 8. Summary of model mediational indirect effects via empowerment and total effects per criteria.
Criteria Team members’ Performance affective reactions
Hypothesize model Revised model Hypothesized model Revised model

effects effects
Exogenous variables Indirect effects Indirect Total Indirect effects Indirect Total
1. Structural empowerment .087* .074* .179* .144* .119* .119*

2. Organizational support .066* .055* .055* .108* .089* .277*
3. External managerial supports .130* .110* .110* .214* .176* .176*
4. Team competencies .055* .045* .081* .087* .072* .002
Note. Table values are indirect effect and total effect size estimates for each exogenous variable per criteria. N ¼ 1,164.
*p < .001.
psychological empowerment (b ¼ .22, p < structural empowerment evidenced a nega-

.001), but they also exhibited a significant tive, albeit nonsignificant, direct influence on
direct positive influence on team members’ members’ affective reactions (b ¼ .15, p ¼
affective reactions (b ¼ .19, p < .001) exhi- .06). Nevertheless, these findings remain
biting a total effect of .277 (p < .001). In exploratory and warrant scrutiny in future
contrast to the surprisingly negative direct research.
effect of team competencies on team psy-
chological empowerment (b ¼ .17, p <
.001) and thereby negative indirect effects Discussion
with team performance and team members’ Empowerment initiatives have received a great
affective reactions, team competencies illu- deal of attention as a means to help teams and
strated positive direct effects with both out- organizations achieve their desired outcomes
comes. Specifically, team competencies (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Mathieu et al.,
related b ¼ .13, p < .001 with team perfor- 2006a). As a result of the enthusiasm sur-
mance (total effect ¼ .081, p < .001) and b ¼ rounding such initiatives, the literature on team
.07, p < .01 with team members’ affective empowerment has grown rapidly. Accordingly,
reactions. Interestingly, the countervailing one goal of this work was to meta-analytically
signs of the significant indirect and direct examine the extant literature to determine the
effects of team competencies, as related to relationships amongst the antecedents and out-
members’ affective reactions, combined to comes of team psychological empowerment.
yield a nonsignificant total effect of .001. In particular, our review extends prior work in
Finally, structural empowerment not only had this area as it demonstrates how the two forms
a positive indirect effect on team perfor- of empowerment (structural and psychological)
mance via team psychological empowerment, fit within a broader team empowerment nomo-
but it also illustrated a significant positive logical network and specifies the unique rela-
direct effect (b ¼ .11, p < .001) and thereby a tionship that exists between these two
total effect of .179 (p < .001). Collectively conceptualizations. Additionally, our model
these revisions to the model accounted for builds upon prior research examining the
12% of the variance in team performance and impact of team psychological empowerment
29% of the variance in team members’ as it discusses and quantifies its relationship
affective reactions. We should note that in with team members’ affective reactions.
addition to the revisions shown in Figure 2, Finally, our work builds upon the team

empowerment nomological network by asses- results of Seibert et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis.

sing the role that three moderating variables For example, Seibert et al. reported a corrected
play on the various main effects examined here. correlation of rc ¼ .51 (95% CI ¼ .35–.64)
Namely, we provide evidence that team type, between team psychological empowerment and
size, and the manner in which team psychologi- performance, whereas our results suggested an
cal empowerment is operationalized impact rc ¼ .304 (95% CI ¼ .207–.319). Several fac-
various antecedent and outcome relationships. tors contributed to this difference including the
By adopting an IPO model and positioning fact that we included more studies (34 vs. 206)
team psychological empowerment as a med- and applied more conservative corrections for
iating emergent state, we seek to further attenuation.7 Moreover, Seibert et al. (2011)
develop and test such a framework. This focused predominantly on the ‘‘team four-
approach is consistent with previous work (e.g., dimension’’ view of team empowerment and
Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Mathieu et al., 2006), sampled studies using primarily self or others’
but also provides a template within which a ratings of performance. In contrast, in addition
broader set of related concepts can be consid- to these types of studies, we also include studies
ered. Additionally, positioning team psycholo- indexing team empowerment using both the
gical empowerment as an emergent state helps ‘‘two-dimension’’ and ‘‘individual four dimen-
to explain why some team interventions that sions–aggregated to team level’’ approaches,
focused solely on structural conditions have had as well as studies that employed archival mea-
limited success. In what follows we discuss a sures of team performance. The results reported
number of our findings, the implications for in Table 4 reveal that studies employing Kirk-
research and practice, the limitations inherent man and Rosen’s (1999) ‘‘team four-dimen-
in our study, as well as suggestions for future sion’’ measure had significantly higher
researchers. correlations with performance, as compared
In terms of some general conclusions, the to studies employing the more general ‘‘two-
meta-analyses revealed that structural dimension’’ approach. Additionally, we con-
empowerment, organizational support, and ducted supplemental analyses breaking down
external managerial support all had signifi- our meta-analyses results by both empower-
cant positive correlations with team psycho- ment and performance measurement types.8
logical empowerment, but none of these Those findings revealed that the ‘‘team four-
relationships were homogeneous leaving dimension’’ measure exhibited significantly
room for moderators to operate. In contrast, higher correlations with team members’
the team competencies correlations with team self-rated performance, as compared to the
psychological empowerment were homoge- ‘‘two-dimension’’ or ‘‘individual four dimen-
neous across studies, yet were not signifi- sions–aggregated to team level’’ measures. No
cantly different from zero. These latter such differences were evident when team per-
results should be interpreted cautiously, how- formance was indexed using others’ ratings or
ever, as they were based on relatively few archival measures. Thus, it appears that Seibert
samples (i.e., four). Team psychological et al.’s (2011) higher correlations may, in part,
empowerment was shown to relate signifi- be attributable to a higher proportion of studies
cantly to both team performance and to using the ‘‘team four-dimensional’’ measures
members’ affective reactions, yet neither of especially when paired with self-ratings of
these meta-analyses were homogeneous performance.
across studies. As for other comparisons with Seibert
There are some important similarities and et al.’s (2011) findings, their corrected team
differences between our study results and the empowerment correlations with external

Maynard et al. 123
managerial support (rc ¼ .61; 95% CI ¼ .43– did not exhibit significant direct effects on either
.74) and with social-political support (rc ¼ .56; outcome in the context of the revised model.
95% CI ¼ .18 –.79; akin to our organizational The influences of team competencies and
support category) were similar to our findings, structural empowerment were both mixed, but
although we sampled a larger number of studies in different ways. As for team competencies,
in both instances. They also reported corrected although their average meta-analysis estimated
team psychological empowerment correlations population correlation with team psychological
with high performance managerial practices empowerment was not significant, when
(HPMP rc ¼ .52; 95% CI ¼ .39–.63) and with analyzed jointly with other antecedents, they
work design characteristics (rc ¼ .49; 95% evidenced a significant negative effect. Perhaps
CI ¼ .20–.70) which are roughly comparable this was an anomalous finding associated with a
to our structural empowerment findings limited number of correlations available for
(rc ¼ .45; 95% CI ¼ .22–.54). However, we study. Or, perhaps, it suggests a substantive
believe that establishing a ‘‘clean’’ distinction relationship whereby teams comprised of more
between the two types of empowerment is competent and longer term members are less
important from both an applied and research receptive to empowerment initiatives as com-
perspective moving forward. pared to teams of less competent or less senior
members. Such a relationship at the team level
would be in keeping with the individual-level
Research implications results of Ahearne, Mathieu, and Rapp (2005)
While our meta-analysis results are encoura- who found that less knowledgeable and experi-
ging, they summarize bivariate relationships enced salespersons benefit more from empow-
that may not demonstrate the true underlying ering leadership behaviors. Perhaps, more
relationships in a larger nomological network. competent teams are comfortable with less
Therefore, we conducted SEM analyses which empowered arrangements and resist change.
reveal that, when taken together, all four ante- Interestingly, however, team competencies
cedents related significantly to team psycholo- exhibited positive direct effects on both team
gical empowerment, although the effect of members’ affective reactions and team perfor-
team competencies are curiously negative. Our mance in the revised model. In short, team
exploratory SEM analyses unearthed an inter- competencies may be a ‘‘double-edged sword’’
esting pattern of effects that were certainly not both enhancing outcomes directly, and under-
evident from the individual meta-analyses. mining them indirectly via a negative impact
First, organizational support was found to be on team psychological empowerment. Certainly
widely beneficial. Not only did this antecedent these interpretations warrant additional study.
category exhibit significant positive indirect The effects emanating from structural
effects on both outcomes via team psychologi- empowerment were perhaps the most intriguing
cal empowerment, but organizational support in the revised model. As fully expected, struc-
also exhibited a significant direct positive influ- tural empowerment features related positively
ence on team members’ affective reactions. and significantly to team psychological
Instilling a supportive overall context appears empowerment. Moreover, structural empower-
to be critical for promoting many aspects of an ment illustrated a positive direct effect on team
empowerment initiative. Second, external man- performance. Enhanced organizational designs
agerial support had the strongest direct effect should generate both enhanced psychological
on team psychological empowerment, and benefits and performance efficiencies. How-
thereby positive indirect effects on both out- ever, after taking into account the influence of
comes. However, external managerial support team psychological empowerment, structural

empowerment exhibited a negative, albeit each one of these antecedents also represents a
nonsignificant, direct effect on team members’ potential intervention avenue. Although the
affective reactions. In other words, structural magnitude of the benefit from providing such
changes may also work as a ‘‘double-edged supports will likely vary, overall such effects
sword.’’ On the one hand, empowering organi- appear advantageous. Notably, this conclusion
zational designs do generate the positive states parallels the suggestions advanced within the
associated with psychological empowerment strategic human resource management (SHRM)
and thereby have positive indirect effects on literature. For example, Lepak and Snell (2002)
team outcomes. On the other hand, perhaps argued that commitment-oriented or high-
employees do not always welcome organiza- performance work systems are bundles of
tional change and often react negatively to human resource programs and practices that
redesigns (e.g., Maynard, Mathieu, Marsh, & embody empowerment and teamwork and yield
Ruddy, 2007). These counterbalancing effects benefits in most organizational settings.
may account, in part, for the mixed findings
associated with structural empowerment inter-
ventions. Notably, such relationships cannot
Directions for future research
be discerned from merely an inspection of Our findings suggest that team psychological
meta-analysis results. Nevertheless, given that empowerment is an important mediating
these findings were only marginal and emerged mechanism linking inputs and outcomes.
in the context of a revised model, they most cer- However, as depicted in Figure 1, the current
tainly warrant further investigation. state of the team psychological empowerment
literature is rather simplistic from the stand-
point that psychological empowerment serves
Practical implications as a partial mediator to certain relationships
The current study provides a number of con- between various antecedents and outcomes.
tributions that further our understanding of While this is in keeping with the traditional IPO
team empowerment. Given the questions that framework (e.g., Hackman & Morris, 1975), we
have arisen as to whether empowerment is are hopeful that this paper will both serve as a
merely a fad (Malone, 1997); we provide sup- synopsis of where the literature currently
port for a significant, positive relationship stands, but more importantly as an impetus for
between team psychological empowerment, where the literature needs to go (e.g., Hum-
performance, and members’ affective reactions. phrey, 2011). In keeping with the IPO frame-
These findings are particularly salient as they work we next present our recommendations for
are likely more reliable than the results of a future research using the following categories:
single study given that they are based on find- (a) antecedents; (b) outcomes, (c) moderators,
ings from 34 unique studies involving literally (d) mediators, and (e) additional directions for
thousands of teams. future research.
Most importantly, our results underscore the
fact that while structural arrangements are Antecedents. As discussed before, two cate-
salient in terms of their influence on team gories of antecedents or empowering conditions
psychological empowerment, they are not the (i.e., structural empowerment and team com-
only influencing factors. Namely, having a petencies) warrant particular future attention. In
supportive organizational environment and a addition, we identified relatively few studies
facilitative external manager are both factors that included organizational support and, based
that significantly relate to team psychological on research examining organizational climate
empowerment. From a practitioner standpoint, (e.g., Dickson, Resick, & Hanges, 2006), we

Maynard et al. 125
view this as another area in need of future empowerment has not currently been consid-
research. Similarly, integrating the cross-team ered as a factor shaping levels of absenteeism
or multiteam system literature (e.g., Marks, and retention, even though these outcomes are
DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005) particularly salient within certain industries
to the current team psychological empower- (Morris, Hearnes, & McMillan, 2011). Again,
ment literature could be potentially fruitful. For we would expect team psychological empow-
example, researchers could assess whether a erment to have a positive impact here thereby,
team’s sense of empowerment is enhanced as reducing absenteeism levels while increasing
their ability to coordinate with groups outside retention rates.
of their team boundary is also improved.
Similarly, it was particularly interesting to Moderators. Our work also suggests that an
note that research conducted to date in the area avenue in need of future attention is that of
of team psychological empowerment has not potential moderators to both the antecedents
extensively considered team member person- and the consequences of team psychological
alities. Understanding personality may shed empowerment. Specifically, while the general
light on why certain individuals, as well as relationships associated with team psycholo-
certain mixes of individuals, respond differ- gical empowerment were significant and
ently to empowerment initiatives. For example, encouraging (with the exception of team
such research could leverage the various well- competencies), none were determined to be
established personality measures (e.g., Big 5) homogenous across studies. We tested three
to assess the impact of personality on subse- potential between-sample moderators of these
quent team psychological empowerment levels. relations (team type, empowerment type, and
Considering team composition variables, such team size) with limited success. External man-
as personality, also may hold the key for under- agerial support exhibited significantly higher
standing instances when teams are resistant to correlations with psychological empowerment
empowerment (e.g., Maynard et al., 2007). in service as compared to ‘‘mixed’’ teams.
Additionally, the ‘‘team four-dimension’’ ver-
Outcomes. A wider variety of outcomes associ- sion of empowerment evidenced higher
ated with team empowerment also warrants correlations with team performance than did
consideration. For instance, research in other the ‘‘two-dimension’’ measure. Moreover, we
domains has considered team creativity as a obtained significantly higher correlations
salient outcome variable (e.g., Farh, Lee, & between the ‘‘team four-dimension’’ measure-
Farh, 2010; Gilson, Mathieu, Shalley, & ment of empowerment and team members’
Ruddy, 2005). Given the freedom and higher affective reactions, as compared to the correla-
levels of potency that is a part of empowerment tions with the ‘‘two-dimension’’ approach.
within a team, we would suggest that team Additionally, the relationship between
creativity should be enhanced when teams are psychological empowerment and team size
empowered. However, this is an empirical appears complex and in need of more in-depth
question. Likewise, future research could assess theorizing and examination. First, structural
the impact that both structural and psychologi- empowerment’s positive effects on team psy-
cal empowerment may have on team learning. chological empowerment became stronger
While there is some evidence that empowering among larger teams. Second, the corrected
leadership behavior is related to team learning positive correlations between team psychologi-
(e.g., Burke et al., 2006), less is known about cal empowerment and performance also were
the link between team psychological empow- higher when teams were larger. In contrast,
erment and learning. Finally, team team size evidenced a negative influence on the

external managerial support–psychological we contend that an extension of this work might

empowerment correlations, such that the posi- consider various types of interdependence, such
tive effects were offset when teams were larger. as a task and goal (e.g., Wageman, 1995) within
Accordingly, we believe that these findings a single study.
attest to the value of empowering teams, but
also signal that such effects are likely to be Mediators. Our results demonstrate that save for
moderated by additional factors that are not yet supportive external managerial effects; team
clearly identified. empowerment did not fully mediate the ante-
For instance, as noted by many within the cedents’ total influences on team performance
team effectiveness literature (e.g., Kirkman & or on members’ affective reactions. Accord-
Mathieu, 2005), all teams are now con- ingly, there appears to still be a need to consider
ceptualized as being virtual to some extent. other variables that may mediate these rela-
However, there has only been a single study tionships. Specifically, team processes (cf.
that considered team empowerment in a study LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul,
that also assesses team virtuality (e.g., 2008) and other team emergent states such as
Kirkman, Rosen, et al., 2004). Accordingly, we shared mental models, psychological safety,
suggest that a fruitful direction for future team identity, and cohesion should be exam-
research is to examine whether the relationships ined. Developing a more comprehensive model
examined here are consistent across the should better enable practitioners to pinpoint
virtuality continuum. In fact, given that many what specific changes will yield the greatest
have suggested that team virtuality is a multi- overall benefit. Moreover, there is potentially
dimensional construct (e.g., Kirkman & value in considering upward influences of team
Mathieu, 2005), it could be interesting to empowerment. In other words, are organiza-
examine whether the specific dimensions of tions that adopt team-based designs and imple-
virtuality (e.g., technology use in general, spe- ment empowerment strategies better able to
cific type of technology utilized, geographic remain competitive in dynamic environments?
distribution, etc.) have differential impacts as If so, is it more important to empower some
moderators to such relationships. areas or functions of the organization (e.g., pro-
Additionally, as noted by Seibert et al. duction, marketing) than others? Such upward
(2011), there is also a lack of research examining compilation processes have heretofore not been
the relationship between other work design addressed and offer potential for both theory
characteristics such as the complexity of the task development and application.
or level of interdependence needed to accom-
plish the task. Interestingly, while numerous Additional directions for future research. While the
individuals have noted the importance of con- aforementioned categories fit nicely within an
sidering the extent to which a team’s task is IPO-type framework, some additional direc-
interdependent (e.g., Kozlowski & Bell, 2003), tions for future research are not as easily
we could find no studies that specifically con- categorized. For example, although our review
sidered this relationship. Therefore, we would and analyses focused exclusively on research
suggest that future research include consider- that examines empowerment at the team level,
ation of team task interdependence. In particular, a great deal of research has focused on
based on the results that emerged within one of individual-level empowerment (see Seibert
the only studies to consider interdependence et al., 2011; and Spector, 1986, for reviews).
when assessing team psychological empower- However, only two studies have examined a
ment (e.g., Chen et al., 2007), we suggest that cross-level relationship between team- and
additional research is needed here. In particular, individual-level empowerment (e.g., Chen

Maynard et al. 127
et al., 2007; Seibert et al., 2004). Obviously, received substantial research attention mean-
with the emergence of multilevel theory and ing that these relationships (e.g., team com-
methodology to investigate such relationships, petencies–team psychological empowerment)
there is a need for more attention on how higher may fall prey to second-order sampling error
level factors (i.e., organizational) impact team (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Certainly, we
and likewise, how team may impact lower level acknowledge that more accurate estimates of
(i.e., individual) variables. As an example, such mean effect sizes could be attained if the
research could explore whether there is a meta-analytic review was based on more
difference between various individual- and unique studies. However, as noted by Schmidt,
team-level outcomes when an employee is Hunter, Pearlman, and Hirsch (1985), impor-
empowered directly as an individual as com- tant insights can be gained from even small
pared to indirectly by being a part of an empow- meta-analyses.
ered team. Similar to the absenteeism and The SEM analyses conducted using meta-
retention discussion outlined previously, work analysis-based correlations also are not without
here could consider the impact that working their shortcomings. First, we had to rely on the
within an empowered team may have on indi- primary study authors’ research designs and
vidual commitment and self-development depictions of the causal order of events when
(Kukenberger, Mathieu, & Ruddy, in press). folding correlations into the meta- and SEM
Given that the extant literature in this area analyses. Most notably, team members’ affec-
is primarily built on correlational results, we tive reactions were often assessed simultane-
know relatively little about the temporal ously with empowerment using similar
dynamics and sequential influences of differ- measures in the original studies. No doubt this
ent empowerment strategies. Work by Ilgen, contributed, in part, to the stronger effects that
Hollenbeck, Johnson, and Jundt (2005) is empowerment exhibited with team members’
pertinent here because it raises the question of affective reactions, as compared to perfor-
temporal sequencing as a team’s prior performance. This same source concern may have
mance may impact subsequent levels of contributed to the number of direct effects that
psychological empowerment and is therefore a we observed between the various antecedent
potentially reciprocal relationship. As such, variables and team members’ affective reac-
we also call on researchers to include temporal tions as compared to performance. Second,
considerations. We say this even though the because different samples are used to derive
correlational findings that we summarized different correlation estimates in the overall
make a strong case for the benefits of having matrix, the multivariate normality assumption
empowered teams; however, more needs to be of SEM analyses must be tempered. Third, we
learned about how to establish such environ- were not able to directly contrast models across
ments and the role that prior performance team or measurement types given that we were
episodes may play in this developmental working with correlations which are not scale
process. invariant. With those caveats, SEM analyses
using meta-analytic correlations permit a far
more comprehensive and inclusive model test
Study limitations than can be done in any original study. We also
While this research makes a contribution to the were able to go beyond bivariate-correlation-
team empowerment literature, as with all based conclusions. Nevertheless, future
studies, it is not without limitations. Specifi- research should examine the implications of
cally, some of the relationships included using meta-analysis correlations in SEM
within the nomological network have not contexts.

Conclusion 3. The relationship between team psychological

empowerment and team performance notes 35
Limitations withstanding, we made every effort
studies in Table 4 as compared to 34 in Table 2
to make our analysis as comprehensive as
because a study (Seibert et al., 2004) was included
possible by including published work, confer-
twice in Table 4 as it included two different mea-
ence papers, dissertations, and unpublished
sures of team empowerment (i.e., ‘‘two-dimen-
studies from various academic disciplines
sion’’ measure and ‘‘individual four
spanning the last two decades. Further, we
dimensions–aggregated to team level’’ view).
employed a framework that is widely accepted
4. The relationship between team psychological
in the team effectiveness literature (e.g.,
empowerment and team members’ affective reac-
Hackman & Morris, 1975; Ilgen et al., 2005) as
tions notes 16 studies in Table 4 as compared to
an organizing mechanism. Additionally, we
15 in Table 2 because a study (Seibert et al.,
identified contextual variables (i.e., team type
2004) was included twice in Table 4 as it included
and size) that may operate as moderators of
two different measures of team empowerment (i.
effects within this nomological network. We
e., ‘‘two-dimension’’ measure and ‘‘individual
also demonstrated that there have been several
four dimensions–aggregated to team level’’
different ways in which research has oper-
view).
ationalized team psychological empowerment
5. The number of studies (i.e., k) included in Table 5
and that the manner in which it is measured
differ from those included in Table 2 because not
impacts the magnitudes of effects that are
all studies included the team size and were there-
observed. Our hope is that the current meta-
fore not included in the team size moderation tests
analytic review will provide a solid understand-
detailed in Table 5.
ing of the current state of the literature, and
6. Seibert et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis included 22
more importantly, will provide an impetus for
team-level studies as noted on page 5. However,
future research to address the many gaps in our only 20 of these studies included consideration
existing knowledge base identified herein. of the relationship between team psychological
empowerment and performance.
Funding 7. Seibert et al.’s (2011) sample size weighted aver-
This research received no specific grant from any age reliabilities for these analyses were .83 for
funding agency in the public, commercial, or not- team psychological empowerment and .80 for
for-profit sectors. team performance, whereas the corresponding
values in our analyses were .85 and .90, respec-
tively. Note that lower reliabilities yield higher
Notes corrected correlations.
1. The relationship between team structural and psy- 8. Details are available from the authors.
chological empowerment notes four studies in
Table 3 as compared to five in Table 2 because
one study that included manufacturing teams was References
not included because it was a single study in that Note: References marked with an asterisk indicate
team type category. studies included in the meta-analysis. References
2. The relationship between team psychological marked with two asterisks indicate that study
empowerment and team performance notes 33 included two samples.
studies in Table 3 as compared to 34 in Table 2 *Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A.,
because one study that included a governmental Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader
study was not included because it was a single political skill and team performance. Journal of
study in that team type category. Management, 30, 309–327.

Maynard et al. 129
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, A. (2005). To Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in
empower or not to empower your sales force? An human agency. American Psychologist, 37,
empirical examination of the influence of 122–147.
leadership empowerment behavior on customer *Barczak, G. B., & McDonough, E. F. (2003). Under-
satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied standing the impact of contexts on factors leading
Psychology, 90, 945–955. to global team performance. Working Paper 03-
*Akgun, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J., & Imamoglu, 005, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
S. Z. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of Beal, D. J., Corey, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002).
team potency in software development projects. On the bias of Huffcutt and Arthur’s (1995)
Information & Management, 44, 646–656. procedure for identifying outliers in the meta-
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Con- analysis of correlations. Journal of Applied
flict management, efficacy, and performance in Psychology, 87, 583–589.
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in
625–642. structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
*Arad, S. (1994). Empowered work groups: Concep- 238–246.
tual framework and empirical assessment in Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., &
organizations. Unpulished doctoral dissertation, Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-anal-
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ysis (Version 2). Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, Burke, S., Stagle, K. C., Gerald, C. K., Goodwin, F.,
F. (2000). The empowering leadership question- Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of
naire: The construction and validation of a new leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A
scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17,
Organizational Behavior, 21, 249–269. 288–307.
Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Membership Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood
dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical Studies: The foundations of OD. Journal of
framework. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 213–231.
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior *Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C.
(Vol. 17, pp. 373–411). Greenwich, CT: JAI (1993). Relations between work group character-
Press. istics and effectiveness: Implications for design-
Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., & Edwards, B. (2007). An ing effective work groups. Personnel
empirical comparison of the criterion-related Psychology, 46, 823–850.
validities of additive and referent-shift operatio- *Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J.
nalizations of team efficacy. Organizational (1996). Relations between work team characteris-
Research Methods, 10, 35–58. tics and effectiveness: A replication and exten-
*Ayres, C. L. (1992). The relationship between sion. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.
productivity and work team autonomy and team Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among con-
process effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dis- structs in the same content domain at different lev-
sertation, University of Texas at Austin. els of analysis: A typology of composition models.
*Bailey, D. E. (1998). Comparison of manufacturing Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.
performance of three team structures in semicon- Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams:
ductor plants. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy
Management, 45, 20–32. of Management Journal, 48, 101–116.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unify- Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005).
ing theory of behavioral change. Psychological Conceptual framework and statistical procedures
Review, 84, 191–215. for delineating and testing multilevel theories of

homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8, climate in boundary-spanning self-managing ser-

375–409. vice teams. Journal of Marketing, 68, 18–35.
**Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter
Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leader- teams do better: A meta-analysis of cognitive
ship, empowerment, and performance in teams. ability and team performance. Small Group
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331–346. Research, 32, 507–532.
*Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J.
expectations on newcomer performance in teams (2006). When organizational climate is unambig-
as mediated by work characteristics, social uous, it is also strong. Journal of Applied
exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Psychology, 91, 351–364.
Management Journal, 46, 591–607. *Douglas, C. A. (1994). Empowering work groups:
Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). A Development and test of a model of the empower-
framework for conducting multilevel construct ment process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
validation. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
(Eds.), Research in multilvel issues: Multilevel *Druskat, V. U., & Kayes, D. C. (2000). Learning
issues in organizational behavior and processes versus performance in short-term project teams.
(Vol. 3, pp. 273–303). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Small Group Research, 31, 328–353.
*Chen, J., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2005). Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing
Uncertainty, team empowerment and time-based from the boundary: The effective leadership of
strategy. Paper presented at the PDMA Interna- self-managing work teams. Academy of Manage-
tional Conference, San Diego, CA. ment Journal, 46, 435–457.
Cohen, S. (1990). Corporate restructuring team. In J. Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task con-
R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those flict and team creativity: A question of how much
that don’t) (pp. 36–55). San Francisco, CA: and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6),
Jossey-Bass. 1173–1180.
*Cohen, S., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1994). The effec- *Gerstner, C. R. (1998). Leadership relationship and
tiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experi- work group effectiveness: A multilevel empirical
ment. Human Relations, 47, 13–43. examination. Unpublised doctoral dissertation,
*Cohen, S., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Spreitzer, G. M. Pennsylvania State University.
(1996). A predictive model of self-managing *Gerwin, D., & Moffat, L. (1997). Withdrawal of
work team effectiveness. Human Relations, team autonomy during concurrent engineering.
49(5), 643–676. Management Science, 43(9), 1275–1287.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E.
empowerment process: Integrating theory and M., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, evaluation of meta-analysis practices in
471–482. management research. Journal of Management,
Cook, R. A., & Goff, J. L. (2002). Coming of age 35, 393–419.
with self-managed teams: Dealing with a problem *Gibson, C. B., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy
employee. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16, divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning
485–496. behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48,
**De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minor- 202–239.
ity dissent and team innovation: The importance Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., &
of participation in decision making. Journal of Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardiza-
Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191–1201. tion: Complementary or conflicting drivers of
*De Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., & Lemmink, J. (2004). team effectiveness. Academy of Management
Antecedents and consequences for the service Journal, 48, 521–531.

Maynard et al. 131
*Gilson, L. L., Shalley, C. E., & Milne, S. H. (2002). Decentralization and the contrasting effects of
The critical role of creativity in the relationship formalization. Journal of Management, 38(2),
between team processes and performance. Paper 475–501.
presented at the Academy of Management Hirschfeld, R. R., & Bernerth, J. B. (2008). Mental
Annual Meeting, Denver, CO. efficacy and physical efficacy at the team level:
Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of Inputs and outcomes among newly formed action
task group effectiveness. Administrative Science teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
Quarterly, 29, 499–517. 1429–1437.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, *Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, P. (2006). Autonomy and
G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a teamwork in innovative projects. Human
construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, Resource Management, 45(1), 67–79.
32, 87–106. Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of
*Haas, M. (2006). Knowledge gathering, team cap- a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data.
abilities, and project performance in challenging Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 327–334.
work environments. Management Science, Humphrey, S. E. (2011). What does a great meta-
52(8), 1170–1184. analysis look like? Organizational Psychology
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In Review, 1, 99–103.
J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Har- *Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examina-
vard Business School Press. tion of the relationship between work group
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, characteristics and performance: Once more into
group interaction processes, and group perfor- the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553–585.
mance effectiveness: A review and proposed Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt,
integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-
experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. process-output models to IMOI models. Annual
45–99). New York, NY: Academic Press. Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation *Janz, B. D. (1999). Self-directed teams in IS: Corre-
through the design of work: Test of a theory. lates for improved systems development work out-
Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor- comes. Information & Management, 35, 171–192.
mance, 16, 250–279. *Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997).
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work rede- Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role
sign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. of autonomy, interdependence, team develop-
*Hechanova-Alampay, R., & Beehr, T. A. (2001). ment, and contextual support variables. Person-
Empowerment, span of control, and safety perfor- nel Psychology, 50, 877–904.
mance in work teams after workforce reduction. *Janz, B. D., Wetherbe, J. C., Davis, G. B., & Noe, R.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, A. (1997). Reengineering the system development
275–282. process: The link between autonomous teams and
Hedges, L. V., & Olken, F. (1985). Statistical methods business process outcomes. Journal of Manage-
for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. ment Information Systems, 14(1), 41–68.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and *Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational
random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psycho- leadership in work groups: The role of empower-
logical Methods, 3, 486–504. ment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on
*Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z., & Han, Y. (2012). Team perceived group performance. Small Group
empowerment and the organizational context: Research, 33(3), 313–336.

*Kim, Y., & Lee, B. (1995). Research and develop- Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work
ment project team climate and team performance groups and teams in organizations. In W. C.
in Korea: A multidimensional approach. R&D Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),
Management, 25, 179–196. Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organi-
Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimen- zational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). Lon-
sions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal don, UK: Wiley.
of Management, 31(5), 700–718. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhan-
*Kirkman, B. L., Mathieu, J. E., Cordery, J. L., cing the effectiveness of work groups and teams.
Kukenberger, M. R., & Rosen, B. (2011). Manag- Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7,
ing a new collaborative entity in business organi- 77–124.
zations: Understanding organizational *Krumaker, S., Vogel, B., & Kunze, F. (2009).
communities of practice effectiveness. Journal Impact of team energy and leader empowerment
of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1234–1245. on transformational leadership: A follower per-
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of spective. Paper presented at the Academy of
work team empowerment. Research in Organi- Management Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
zational Change and Development, 10, Kukenberger, M. R., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. M.
131–167. (in press). Cross-level tests of empowerment and
*Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self- process influences on members’ informal learn-
management: Antecedents and consequences of ing and team commitment. Journal of
team empowerment. Academy of Management Management.
Journal, 42, 58–74. **Langfred, C. W. (2000a). The paradox of self-
*Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, management: Individual and group autonomy in
C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment work groups. Journal of Organizational Beha-
on virtual team performance: The moderating vior, 21, 563–585.
role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Man- *Langfred, C. W. (2000b). Work group design and
agement Journal, 47, 175–192. autonomy: A field study of the interaction
*Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The between task interdependence and group auton-
impact of team members’ cultural values on pro- omy. Small Group Research, 31(1), 54–70.
ductivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self- *Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and perfor-
managing work teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural mance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect
Psychology, 32(5), 597–617. of task interdependence. Journal of Management,
*Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2001). 31, 513–529.
Assessing the incremental validity of team con- *Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-
sensus ratings over aggregation of individual- management: A longitudinal study of the effects
level data in predicting team effectiveness. of conflict on trust, autonomy and task interde-
Personnel Psychology, 54, 645–667. pendence in self-managing teams. Academy of
*Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. Management Journal, 50(4), 885–900.
(2004). The impact of demographic heteroge- Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A.
neity and team leader–team member demo- (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of par-
graphic fit on team empowerment and ticipation: A mediator study. Journal of Organi-
effectiveness. Group & Organization Manage- zational Behavior, 15, 49–63.
ment, 29, 334–368. Lawler, E. E., III. (1986). High-involvement manage-
Klein, K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel ment: Participative strategies for improving
theory, research and methods in organization. organizational performance. San Francisco, CA:
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jossey-Bass.

Maynard et al. 133
Lawler, E. E., III. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Malone, T. W. (1997). Is ‘‘empowerment’’ just a fad?
Creating the high-involvement organization. San Control, decision-making, and information tech-
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. nology. Sloan Management Review, 38, 23–35.
Lawler, E. I., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. *Man, D. C., & Lam, S. S. (2003). The effects of job
(1995). Creating high performance organizations: complexity and autonomy on cohesiveness in col-
Practices and results of employee involvement and lectivistic and individualistic work groups: A
total quality management in Fortune 1000 compa- cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Organizational
nies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Behavior, 24, 979–1001.
Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading
The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: workers to lead themselves: The external leader-
An empirical test involving operators of complex ship of self-managing work teams. Administrative
technology. Journal of Occupational and Organi- Science Quarterly, 32, 106–128.
zational Psychology, 76, 27–52. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1993). Business with-
*Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., Rogelberg, S. G., & Jack- out bosses: How self-managing teams are build-
son, P. R. (2005). Team autonomy, performance, ing high-performance companies. New York,
and member job strain: Uncovering the teamwork NY: Wiley.
KSA link. Applied Psychology: An International Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Pan-
Review, 54(1), 1–24. zer, F. J., & Alonso, A. A. (2005). Teamwork in
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the multi-team systems. Journal of Applied Psychol-
human resource architecture: The relationships ogy, 90, 964–971.
among human capital, employment, and human Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001).
resource configurations. Journal of Management, A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
28(4), 517–543. team processes. Academy of Management
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, Review, 26, 356–376.
J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The life
teamwork processes: Test of a multidimensional and work of Kurt Lewin. New York, NY: Basic
model and relationships with team effectiveness Books.
criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307. *Marsh, W. M. (1998). The impact of context on
Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. team processes and performance: A cross-cul-
In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Read- tural examination of globalized teams. Unpub-
ings in social psychology (pp. 330–344). New lished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State
York, NY: Holt. University, State College, PA.
*Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. Mathieu, J. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2012). Critical issues
(2009). Do they see eye to eye? Management and in team effectiveness. In S. J. W. Kozlowski (Ed.),
employee perspectives of high performance work Handbook of industrial and organizational psy-
systems and influence processes on service qual- chology (pp. 910–930). Oxford: Palo Alto, CA.
ity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 371–391. *Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M.
*Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Bradway, L. K. (2006a). Empowerment and team effectiveness:
(1997). Task interdependence as a moderator of An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal
the relation between group control and perfor- of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108.
mance. Human Relations, 50(2), 169–181. *Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. (2006b). Empowerment and team effectiveness:
M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A compar- An empirical test of an integrated model – Sample
ison of methods to test mediation and other inter- 1. Unpublished work.
vening variable effects. Psychological Methods, *Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M.
7, 83–104. (2006c). Empowerment and team effectiveness:

An empirical test of an integrated model – Time 1. Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The
Unpublished work. structure and function of collective constructs:
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, Implications for multilevel research and theory
L. L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A development. Academy of Management Review,
review of recent advancements and a glimpse into 24, 249–265.
the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476. Morris, M. L., Hearnes, J. T., & McMillan, H. S.
*Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, A., Ahearne, M., & Rapp, T. (2011). Human resource executives’ perceptions
L. (2007). Empowering leadership, member expe- and measurement of the strategic impact of
rience, and virtuality: Influences on processes work/life initiatives. Human Resource Develop-
and effectiveness. Paper presented at the ment Quarterly, 22(3), 265–295.
Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s
Philadelphia, PA. guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen &
*Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). External lead- Muthen.
ership, team interdependence and customer driven *Perez, M. I. (2000). The effect of empowerment on
quality system influences on team processes and organizational effectiveness moderated by lead-
performance: A quasi-experiment. Paper presented ership style: An applied assessment. Unpublished
at the Society for Industrial and Organizational doctoral dissertation, Alliant International Uni-
Psychology Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA. versity, Alhambra, CA.
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying *Purdy, N., Laschinger, H., Finegan, J., Kerr, M., &
conditions and decision points for mediational Olivera, F. (2009). Impact of nursing work
type inferences in organizational behavior. Jour- environments on teamwork and patient outcomes.
nal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031–1056. Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Marsh, W. M., & Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Ruddy, T. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation **Rapp, T. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2007). Team learn-
of the influences of employees’ resistance to ing as mediating leader behaviors, empowerment,
empowerment. Human Performance, 20, 147–171. interdependence, and team performance. Paper
*Melchior, M. E. W., van den Berg, A. A., Halfens, R., presented at the Academy of Management
Huyer, A.-S. H., Philipsen, H., & Gassman, P. Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
(1997). Burnout and the work environment of nurses *Reilly, R. R., Chen, J., & Lynn, G. S. (2003). Power
in psychiatric long-stay care settings. Social Psy- and empowerment: The role of top management
chiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 32, 158–164. support and team empowerment in new product
Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An development. Paper presented at the PICMET
integrative psychological approach. Applied Psy- Conference, Portland, OR.
chology: An International Review, 50, 153–180. *Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sanchez-Manzanares, M.,
Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing & van der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The effects of
the limits of structural empowerment: Organiza- diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on
tional constitution and trust as controls. Academy decision quality and social integration. Journal
of Management Review, 28, 143–153. of Management, 33, 111–132.
*Molleman, E. (2005). Diversity in demographic *Rogelberg, S. G. (1994). The impact of employee
characteristics, abilities and personality traits: service perceptions of the customer on service
Do faultlines affect team functioning? Group oriented behavior. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
Decision and Negotiation, 14, 173–193. tion, University of Connecticut.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. (2010). Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Pearlman, K., & Hirsch,
Leadership in teams: A functional approach to H. R. (1985). Forty questions about validity
understanding leadership structures and pro- generalization and meta-analysis. Personnel Psy-
cesses. Journal of Management, 36, 5–39. chology, 38, 697–798.

Maynard et al. 135
*Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. measurement, and validation. Academy of Man-
(2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: agement Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
A multiple-level model of empowerment, perfor- Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteris-
mance, and satisfaction. Academy of Manage- tics of psychological empowerment. Academy of
ment Journal, 47(3), 332–349. Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. (2011). Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of
Antecedents and consequences of psychological more than twenty years of research on empower-
and team empowerment in organizations: A ment at work. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper
meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psy- (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior
chology, 96(5), 981–1003. (pp. 54–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Sethi, R. (2000). Superodrdinate identity in cross- *Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S., & Ledford, G. E., Jr.
functional product development teams: Its (1999). Developing effective self-managing work
antecedents and effect on new product perfor- teams in service organizations. Group & Organi-
mance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- zation Management, 24, 340–366.
ence, 28, 330–344. *Spreitzer, G. M., Noble, D. S., Mishra, A. K., &
*Shapiro, D. L., Chen, G., Nangia, P., Edinger, S., & Cooke, W. N. (1999). Predicting process
Farh, J. L. (2008). Individual differences in reac- improvement team performance in an automotive
tions to relationship conflict. Paper presented at firm: Explicating the roles of trust and empower-
the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, ment. In E. Mannix & M. Neale (Eds.), Research
Anaheim, CA. on managing groups and teams (Vol. 2,
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Groups as human pp. 71–92). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
resources. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009).
(Eds.), Research in personnel and human Collective efficacy, group potency, and group
resources management (Vol. 5, pp. 323–356). performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships
Greenwich, CT: JAI. and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied
*Silver, S. R. (2000). Perceptions of empowerment Psychology, 94, 814–828.
in engineer workgroups: The linkage to transfor- *Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team
mational leadership and performance. Unpub- structure and performance: Asseessing the med-
lished doctoral dissertation, The George iating role of intrateam process and the moderat-
Washington University, Washington, DC. ing role of task type. Academy of Management
Sims, H. P., Jr., & Manz, C. C. (1984). Observing Journal, 43, 135–148.
leader verbal behavior: Toward reciprocal deter- Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting
minism in leadership theory. Journal of Applied work team effectiveness. In E. S. Associates
Psychology, 6, 222–232. (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness
*Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B. J., (pp. 3–23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
& Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the Susman, G., (1976). Autonomy at work: A sociotech-
effects of team leadership and group potency on nical analysis of participative management. New
group performance. Group & Organization Man- York, NY: Praeger.
agement, 27, 66–96. *Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employ- management, organizational structure, and
ees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning auton- judgments of team effectiveness. Journal of Man-
omy and participation at work. Human Relations, agerial Issues, 16(2), 248–265.
39, 1005–1016. *Tesluk, P. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Overcoming
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empower- roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating man-
ment in the workplace: Dimensions, agement of performance barriers into models of

work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied presented at the Academy of Management

Psychology, 84, 200–217. Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
*Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Leading technology-based
project teams. Engineering Management Journal,
Author biographies
16(2), 35–42.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cogni- M. Travis Maynard is an Assistant Professor
tive elements of empowerment: An ‘‘interpre- in the Department of Management at Colorado
tive’’ model of intrinsic task motivation. State University. He received a PhD in Organi-
Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681. zational Behavior at the University of Connec-
Trist, E. L., Higgin, G. W., Murray, H., & Pollack, A.
ticut, an MBA at the University of Denver, and
B. (1963). Organizational choice. London, UK:
an undergraduate degree in accounting from
Tavistock.
The College of William & Mary. His current
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory
testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis research interests include the role that team
and structural equations modeling. Personnel contextual variables have on team processes
Psychology, 48(4), 865–885. and the development of team psychological
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group states.
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40, 145–180. John E. Mathieu is a Professor of Management
*Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self- and Cizik Chair at the University of Connecti-
managing team effectiveness: Design choices cut. His areas of interest include models of team
versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, and multiteam effectiveness, and cross-level
12(5), 559–577. models of organizational behavior. He has
Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence
worked with several Fortune 500 companies,
intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analy-
the armed services, federal and state agencies,
sis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 259–264.
*Wilderom, C. P. M., & Berg, P. V. (2010). Socia-
and public organizations.
lized charismatic leadership and organization
culture as predictors of firm performance. Paper Lucy L. Gilson is an Associate Professor at the
presented at the Academy of Management University of Connecticut’s School of Business
Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada. and is a visiting international Fellow with the
Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. British Advanced Institute of Management
(1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddujx (AIM). She earned her PhD in Organizational
(Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment Behavior with a minor in Human Resource
theory: Research and application (pp. Management at the Georgia Institute of Tech-
305–328). New York, NY: Plenum. nology. She has an MBA from Georgia Tech
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A.
and a BSc from Georgetown University’s
(2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly,
School of Foreign Service. Dr. Gilson’s
12, 451–483.
research and published work focuses on teams
*Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). Multi-
national organization context: Implications for and creativity; here she examines teams in dif-
team learning and performance. Academy of ferent organizational settings and performing a
Management Journal, 49(3), 501–518. diverse range of jobs. Specifically, she studies
*Ziegert, J. C. (2009). Empowering teams and how creativity, empowerment, diversity, fair-
sharing leadership: An examination of team ness issues, and virtual communication influ-
empowerment and shared leadership. Paper ence team effectiveness. She has recently

Maynard et al. 137
written chapters for the Handbook on Organi- superstar effects, and research methods. His
zational Creativity and Handbook of Industrial work has appeared in such outlets as Journal
and Organizational Psychology. Her research of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology,
has been published in the Academy of Manage- Psychological Bulletin, Journal of Manage-
ment Journal, Journal of Management, Journal ment, and Organizational Research Methods.
of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Voca-
Konstantin P. Cigularov is an Assistant Profes-
tional Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychol-
sor of Industrial-Organizational Psychology in
ogy, and Leadership Quarterly. Professor
the Psychology Department at Old Dominion
Gilson has been actively involved in the Orga-
University, Norfolk, Virginia. He received his
nizational Behavior Division of the Academy
PhD in Industrial-Organizational Psychology
of Management, is a Board member of the
from Colorado State University. His research,
Southern Management Association, and on the
focusing on organizational climate, leadership,
Editorial Board of the Journal of Management
training, and safety, has been published in outlets,
and Group and Organization Management.
such as Journal of Business and Psychology,
Ernest H. O’Boyle Jr is an Assistant Professor Leadership and Organization Development Jour-
of management at the University of Iowa. He nal, Work & Stress, and Accident Analysis and
received his doctorate in 2010 from Virginia Prevention. Dr. Cigularov has received funding
Commonwealth University. His research inter- support for his work from the National Institute
ests include counterproductive work behaviors, of Occupational Safety and Health.

Organizational Psychology Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Organizational Psychology Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizational Psychology Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizational Psychology Review

Drivers and outcomes of team psychological empowerment: A meta-analytic review

The online version of this article can be found at:

European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology

Email Alerts: http://opr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Apr 23, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 12, 2012

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 25, 2014