Using meta-analysis and structural equation modeling, we examine the unique and combined relationships 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 regarding 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.
Note: References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis. References marked with two asterisks indicate that study included two samples.
2.
*AhearnK. K.FerrisG. R.HochwarterW. A.DouglasC.AmmeterA. P. (2004). Leader political skill and team performance. Journal of Management, 30, 309–327.
3.
AhearneM.MathieuJ. E.RappA. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945–955.
4.
*AkgunA. E.KeskinH.ByrneJ.ImamogluS. Z. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of team potency in software development projects. Information & Management, 44, 646–656.
5.
AlperS.TjosvoldD.LawK. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642.
6.
*AradS. (1994). Empowered work groups: Conceptual framework and empirical assessment in organizations. Unpulished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
7.
ArnoldJ. A.AradS.RhoadesJ. A.DrasgowF. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249–269.
8.
ArrowH.McGrathJ. E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 373–411). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
9.
ArthurW.BellS. T.EdwardsB. (2007). An empirical comparison of the criterion-related validities of additive and referent-shift operationalizations of team efficacy. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 35–58.
10.
*AyresC. L. (1992). The relationship between productivity and work team autonomy and team process effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
11.
*BaileyD. E. (1998). Comparison of manufacturing performance of three team structures in semiconductor plants. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45, 20–32.
12.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
13.
BanduraA. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
14.
*BarczakG. B.McDonoughE. F. (2003). Understanding the impact of contexts on factors leading to global team performance. Working Paper 03-005, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
15.
BealD. J.CoreyD. M.DunlapW. P. (2002). On the bias of Huffcutt and Arthur’s (1995) procedure for identifying outliers in the meta-analysis of correlations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 583–589.
16.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
BurkeS.StagleK. C.GeraldC. K.GoodwinF.SalasE.HalpinS. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams?A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307.
19.
BurnesB. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood Studies: The foundations of OD. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 213–231.
20.
*CampionM. A.MedskerG. J.HiggsA. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.
21.
*CampionM. A.PapperE. M.MedskerG. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.
22.
ChanD. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.
23.
ChenG. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 101–116.
24.
ChenG.BlieseP. D.MathieuJ. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 375–409.
25.
**ChenG.KirkmanB. L.KanferR.AllenD.RosenB. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331–346.
26.
*ChenG.KlimoskiR. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 591–607.
27.
ChenG.MathieuJ. E.BlieseP. D. (2004). A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In YammarinoF. J.DansereauF. (Eds.), Research in multilvel issues: Multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes (Vol. 3, pp. 273–303). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
28.
*ChenJ.ReillyR. R.LynnG. S. (2005). Uncertainty, team empowerment and time-based strategy. Paper presented at the PDMA International Conference, San Diego, CA.
29.
CohenS. (1990). Corporate restructuring team. In HackmanJ. R. (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t) (pp. 36–55). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30.
*CohenS.LedfordG. E.Jr. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47, 13–43.
31.
*CohenS.LedfordG. E.Jr.SpreitzerG. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5), 643–676.
32.
CongerJ. A.KanungoR. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.
33.
CookR. A.GoffJ. L. (2002). Coming of age with self-managed teams: Dealing with a problem employee. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16, 485–496.
34.
**De DreuC. K. W.WestM. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191–1201.
35.
*De JongA.de RuyterK.LemminkJ. (2004). Antecedents and consequences for the service climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams. Journal of Marketing, 68, 18–35.
36.
DevineD. J.PhilipsJ. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better: A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32, 507–532.
37.
DicksonM. W.ResickC. J.HangesP. J. (2006). When organizational climate is unambiguous, it is also strong. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 351–364.
38.
*DouglasC. A. (1994). Empowering work groups: Development and test of a model of the empowerment process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
39.
*DruskatV. U.KayesD. C. (2000). Learning versus performance in short-term project teams. Small Group Research, 31, 328–353.
40.
DruskatV. U.WheelerJ. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435–457.
41.
FarhJ. L.LeeC.FarhC. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173–1180.
42.
*GerstnerC. R. (1998). Leadership relationship and work group effectiveness: A multilevel empirical examination. Unpublised doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
43.
*GerwinD.MoffatL. (1997). Withdrawal of team autonomy during concurrent engineering. Management Science, 43(9), 1275–1287.
44.
GeyskensI.KrishnanR.SteenkampJ.-B. E. M.CunhaP. V. (2009). A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35, 393–419.
45.
*GibsonC. B.VermeulenF. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239.
46.
GilsonL. L.MathieuJ. E.ShalleyC. E.RuddyT. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 521–531.
47.
*GilsonL. L.ShalleyC. E.MilneS. H. (2002). The critical role of creativity in the relationship between team processes and performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.
48.
GladsteinD. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517.
49.
GuzzoR. A.YostP. R.CampbellR. J.SheaG. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.
50.
*HaasM. (2006). Knowledge gathering, team capabilities, and project performance in challenging work environments. Management Science, 52(8), 1170–1184.
51.
HackmanJ. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In LorschJ. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
52.
HackmanJ. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
53.
HackmanJ. R.MorrisC. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction processes, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45–99). New York, NY: Academic Press.
54.
HackmanJ. R.OldhamG. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
55.
HackmanJ. R.OldhamG. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
56.
*Hechanova-AlampayR.BeehrT. A. (2001). Empowerment, span of control, and safety performance in work teams after workforce reduction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 275–282.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504.
59.
*HempelP. S.ZhangZ.HanY. (2012). Team empowerment and the organizational context: Decentralization and the contrasting effects of formalization. Journal of Management, 38(2), 475–501.
60.
HirschfeldR. R.BernerthJ. B. (2008). Mental efficacy and physical efficacy at the team level: Inputs and outcomes among newly formed action teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1429–1437.
61.
*HoeglM.ParboteeahP. (2006). Autonomy and teamwork in innovative projects. Human Resource Management, 45(1), 67–79.
62.
HuffcuttA. I.ArthurW. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 327–334.
63.
HumphreyS. E. (2011). What does a great meta-analysis look like?Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 99–103.
64.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65.
*HyattD. E.RuddyT. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553–585.
66.
IlgenD. R.HollenbeckJ. R.JohnsonM.JundtD. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.
67.
*JanzB. D. (1999). Self-directed teams in IS: Correlates for improved systems development work outcomes. Information & Management, 35, 171–192.
68.
*JanzB. D.ColquittJ. A.NoeR. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50, 877–904.
69.
*JanzB. D.WetherbeJ. C.DavisG. B.NoeR. A. (1997). Reengineering the system development process: The link between autonomous teams and business process outcomes. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(1), 41–68.
70.
*JungD. I.SosikJ. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33(3), 313–336.
71.
*KimY.LeeB. (1995). Research and development project team climate and team performance in Korea: A multidimensional approach. R&D Management, 25, 179–196.
72.
KirkmanB. L.MathieuJ. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700–718.
73.
*KirkmanB. L.MathieuJ. E.CorderyJ. L.KukenbergerM. R.RosenB. (2011). Managing a new collaborative entity in business organizations: Understanding organizational communities of practice effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1234–1245.
74.
KirkmanB. L.RosenB. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 10, 131–167.
75.
*KirkmanB. L.RosenB. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74.
76.
*KirkmanB. L.RosenB.TeslukP. E.GibsonC. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175–192.
77.
*KirkmanB. L.ShapiroD. L. (2001). The impact of team members’ cultural values on productivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self-managing work teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 597–617.
78.
*KirkmanB. L.TeslukP. E.RosenB. (2001). Assessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 54, 645–667.
79.
*KirkmanB. L.TeslukP. E.RosenB. (2004). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader–team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 29, 334–368.
80.
KleinK.KozlowskiS. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research and methods in organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
81.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In BormanW. C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). London, UK: Wiley.
82.
KozlowskiS. W. J.IlgenD. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.
83.
*KrumakerS.VogelB.KunzeF. (2009). Impact of team energy and leader empowerment on transformational leadership: A follower perspective. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
84.
KukenbergerM. R.MathieuJ. E.RuddyT. M. (in press). Cross-level tests of empowerment and process influences on members’ informal learning and team commitment. Journal of Management.
85.
**LangfredC. W. (2000a). The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 563–585.
86.
*LangfredC. W. (2000b). Work group design and autonomy: A field study of the interaction between task interdependence and group autonomy. Small Group Research, 31(1), 54–70.
87.
*LangfredC. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31, 513–529.
88.
*LangfredC. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885–900.
89.
LathamG. P.WintersD. C.LockeE. A. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49–63.
90.
LawlerE. E.III. (1986). High-involvement management: Participative strategies for improving organizational performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
91.
LawlerE. E.III. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
92.
LawlerE. I.MohrmanS. A.LedfordG. E.Jr. (1995). Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality management in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
93.
LeachD. J.WallT. D.JacksonP. R. (2003). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 27–52.
94.
*LeachD. J.WallT. D.RogelbergS. G.JacksonP. R. (2005). Team autonomy, performance, and member job strain: Uncovering the teamwork KSA link. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(1), 1–24.
95.
LepakD. P.SnellS. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of Management, 28(4), 517–543.
96.
LePineJ. A.PiccoloR. F.JacksonC. L.MathieuJ. E.SaulJ. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Test of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307.
97.
LewinK. (1947). Group decision and social change. In NewcombT. M.HartleyE. L. (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 330–344). New York, NY: Holt.
98.
*LiaoH.ToyaK.LepakD. P.HongY. (2009). Do they see eye to eye? Management and employee perspectives of high performance work systems and influence processes on service quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 371–391.
99.
*LidenR. C.WayneS. J.BradwayL. K. (1997). Task interdependence as a moderator of the relation between group control and performance. Human Relations, 50(2), 169–181.
100.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.HoffmanJ. M.WestS. G.SheetsV. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
101.
MaloneT. W. (1997). Is “empowerment” just a fad? Control, decision-making, and information technology. Sloan Management Review, 38, 23–35.
102.
*ManD. C.LamS. S. (2003). The effects of job complexity and autonomy on cohesiveness in collectivistic and individualistic work groups: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 979–1001.
103.
ManzC. C.SimsH. P.Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–128.
104.
ManzC. C.SimsH. P.Jr. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building high-performance companies. New York, NY: Wiley.
105.
MarksM. A.DeChurchL. A.MathieuJ. E.PanzerF. J.AlonsoA. A. (2005). Teamwork in multi-team systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 964–971.
106.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.
107.
MarrowA. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York, NY: Basic Books.
108.
*MarshW. M. (1998). The impact of context on team processes and performance: A cross-cultural examination of globalized teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
109.
MathieuJ. E.GilsonL. L. (2012). Critical issues in team effectiveness. In KozlowskiS. J. W. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 910–930). Oxford: Palo Alto, CA.
110.
*MathieuJ. E.GilsonL. L.RuddyT. M. (2006a). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108.
111.
*MathieuJ. E.GilsonL. L.RuddyT. M. (2006b). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model – Sample 1. Unpublished work.
112.
*MathieuJ. E.GilsonL. L.RuddyT. M. (2006c). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model – Time 1. Unpublished work.
113.
MathieuJ. E.MaynardM. T.RappT. L.GilsonL. L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.
114.
*MathieuJ. E.RappA.AhearneM.RappT. L. (2007). Empowering leadership, member experience, and virtuality: Influences on processes and effectiveness. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
115.
*MathieuJ. E.RuddyT. M. (2005). External leadership, team interdependence and customer driven quality system influences on team processes and performance: A quasi-experiment. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA.
116.
MathieuJ. E.TaylorS. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031–1056.
117.
MaynardM. T.MathieuJ. E.MarshW. M.RuddyT. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the influences of employees’ resistance to empowerment. Human Performance, 20, 147–171.
118.
*MelchiorM. E. W.van den BergA. A.HalfensR.HuyerA.-S. H.PhilipsenH.GassmanP. (1997). Burnout and the work environment of nurses in psychiatric long-stay care settings. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 32, 158–164.
119.
MenonS. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 153–180.
120.
MillsP. K.UngsonG. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: Organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of Management Review, 28, 143–153.
121.
*MollemanE. (2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits: Do faultlines affect team functioning?Group Decision and Negotiation, 14, 173–193.
122.
MorgesonF. P.DeRueD. S.KaramE. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5–39.
123.
MorgesonF. P.HofmannD. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249–265.
124.
MorrisM. L.HearnesJ. T.McMillanH. S. (2011). Human resource executives’ perceptions and measurement of the strategic impact of work/life initiatives. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(3), 265–295.
125.
MuthenL. K.MuthenB. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
126.
*PerezM. I. (2000). The effect of empowerment on organizational effectiveness moderated by leadership style: An applied assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University, Alhambra, CA.
127.
*PurdyN.LaschingerH.FineganJ.KerrM.OliveraF. (2009). Impact of nursing work environments on teamwork and patient outcomes. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
128.
**RappT. L.RuddyT. M. (2007). Team learning as mediating leader behaviors, empowerment, interdependence, and team performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
129.
*ReillyR. R.ChenJ.LynnG. S. (2003). Power and empowerment: The role of top management support and team empowerment in new product development. Paper presented at the PICMET Conference, Portland, OR.
130.
*RicoR.MollemanE.Sanchez-ManzanaresM.van der VegtG. S. (2007). The effects of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of Management, 33, 111–132.
131.
*RogelbergS. G. (1994). The impact of employee service perceptions of the customer on service oriented behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
132.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E.PearlmanK.HirschH. R. (1985). Forty questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 697–798.
133.
*SeibertS. E.SilverS. R.RandolphW. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332–349.
134.
SeibertS. E.WangG.CourtrightS. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.
135.
*SethiR. (2000). Superodrdinate identity in cross-functional product development teams: Its antecedents and effect on new product performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 330–344.
136.
*ShapiroD. L.ChenG.NangiaP.EdingerS.FarhJ. L. (2008). Individual differences in reactions to relationship conflict. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.
137.
SheaG. P.GuzzoR. A. (1987). Groups as human resources. In RowlandK. M.FerrisG. R. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 5, pp. 323–356). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
138.
*SilverS. R. (2000). Perceptions of empowerment in engineer workgroups: The linkage to transformational leadership and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
139.
SimsH. P.Jr.ManzC. C. (1984). Observing leader verbal behavior: Toward reciprocal determinism in leadership theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 222–232.
140.
*SivasubramaniamN.MurryW. D.AvolioB. J.JungD. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27, 66–96.
141.
SpectorP. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.
142.
SpreitzerG. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
143.
SpreitzerG. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
144.
SpreitzerG. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In BarlingJ.CooperC. L. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 54–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
145.
*SpreitzerG. M.CohenS.LedfordG. E.Jr. (1999). Developing effective self-managing work teams in service organizations. Group & Organization Management, 24, 340–366.
146.
*SpreitzerG. M.NobleD. S.MishraA. K.CookeW. N. (1999). Predicting process improvement team performance in an automotive firm: Explicating the roles of trust and empowerment. In MannixE.NealeM. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 2, pp. 71–92). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
147.
StajkovicA. D.LeeD.NybergA. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 814–828.
148.
*StewartG. L.BarrickM. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Asseessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135–148.
149.
SundstromE. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In AssociatesE. S. (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp. 3–23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
150.
SusmanG., (1976). Autonomy at work: A sociotechnical analysis of participative management. New York, NY: Praeger.
151.
*TataJ.PrasadS. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments of team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(2), 248–265.
152.
*TeslukP. E.MathieuJ. E. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 200–217.
153.
*ThamhainH. J. (2004). Leading technology-based project teams. Engineering Management Journal, 16(2), 35–42.
154.
ThomasK. W.VelthouseB. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.
155.
TristE. L.HigginG. W.MurrayH.PollackA. B. (1963). Organizational choice. London, UK: Tavistock.
156.
ViswesvaranC.OnesD. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 865–885.
157.
WagemanR. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180.
158.
*WagemanR. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559–577.
159.
WhitenerE. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 259–264.
160.
*WilderomC. P. M.BergP. V. (2010). Socialized charismatic leadership and organization culture as predictors of firm performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
161.
ZaccaroS. J.BlairV.PetersonC.ZazanisM. (1995). Collective efficacy. In MaddujxJ. E. (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment theory: Research and application (pp. 305–328). New York, NY: Plenum.
162.
ZaccaroS. J.RittmanA. L.MarksM. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483.
163.
*Zellmer-BruhnM.GibsonC. B. (2006). Multinational organization context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 501–518.
164.
*ZiegertJ. C. (2009). Empowering teams and sharing leadership: An examination of team empowerment and shared leadership. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
