Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association

2006, Vol. 91, No. 1, 97–108 0021-9010/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.97

Empowerment and Team Effectiveness: An Empirical Test of

an Integrated Model

John E. Mathieu and Lucy L. Gilson Thomas M. Ruddy

University of Connecticut Siemens

The authors developed a model of team empowerment as an emergent state linking inputs (I) with
processes (P) and, thereby, with outcomes (O) in the context of an expanded team IPO framework. Using
survey responses from 452 members of 121 empowered service technician teams, along with archival
quantitative performance and customer satisfaction criteria, the authors tested the model using structural
equation modeling techniques. The model was generally supported, although areas for improvement were
evident. Specifically, empowerment partially mediated the influences of various inputs on team pro-
cesses, whereas team processes fully mediated the influence of empowerment on outcomes. Directions
for future research and application are discussed.

Keywords: teams, empowerment, IPO model, processes

Work teams have been described as “integral” to organizational
success in our global, fast-paced, customer-driven economy
(Sundstrom, 1999). Empowerment has been seen as a powerful
mechanism for increasing employee involvement (Lawler, 1986)
and, thereby, enabling organizations to be more flexible and re-
sponsive (Bowen & Lawler, 1992; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999;
Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991). Empowered teams have greater
authority and responsibility for their work than do more traditional
teams, and their effectiveness is determined, in part, by the recep-
tiveness or supports of the larger organizational system within
which they operate (Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997). Although researchers
have sought to understand influences on the success of empowered
teams (i.e., Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999),
empowerment has not been examined within the context of the
classic input–process-outcome (IPO) framework (e.g., Hackman &
Morris, 1975; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; McGrath, 1984).
Our goals in this study are as follows. First, we advance a model
that depicts team empowerment as an emergent state linking team
inputs and processes in an expanded IPO framework. In so doing,
we argue that team processes serve to mediate the influence of
team empowerment on team outcomes. Second, we test our model
using survey data collected from a sample of customer service
technician teams along with lagged archival measures of team
performance and external customer satisfaction measures. Third,
we conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings
for future research and practice.
John E. Mathieu and Lucy L. Gilson, Department of Management,
University of Connecticut; Thomas M. Ruddy, Siemens, Iselin, New
Jersey.
We thank Scott Taylor and Travis Maynard for their efforts and com-
ments on work related to this project. We also thank Bradley Kirkman, Dov
Eden, and Katherine Klein for their helpful comments on earlier versions
of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John
E. Mathieu, Department of Management, University of Connecticut,
2100 Hillside Drive, Storrs, CT 06269-1041. E-mail: john.mathieu@
business.uconn.edu
Team Empowerment Construct
Empowerment is not a new phenomenon and can be traced back
to the early work of Lewin (1947) on employee involvement. In
the 1990s, empowerment became a rallying cry for reengineering
where it was proposed that individuals should have the authority to
make their own decisions regarding how their work was to be done
(Hammer & Champy, 1993), resulting in more innovative, happier,
and productive employees (Peters, 1992). To date, empowerment
has been defined in several different ways, although one point of
consensus is that it is an isomorphic construct across levels of
investigation (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1997, 1999; Spreitzer,
1996). Isomorphic constructs retain the same basic meaning and
function across levels of analysis (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
Although most theorists and researchers have considered empow-
erment at the individual level, others have applied the concept to
teams or work groups (e.g., Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997; Kirkman &
Rosen, 1999; Liden & Tewksbury, 1995), as do we in this article.
Essentially, there are two different conceptions of empowerment
in the extant literature: structural and psychological (cf. Leach,
Wall, & Jackson, 2003; Menon, 2001; Spreitzer, 1995).1 Advo-
cates of the structural approach argue that empowerment is a
practice or set of practices that involve the delegation of authority
and responsibility to employees. Structural empowerment has been
examined at the individual (e.g., Perry, Pearce & Sims, 1999;
1
We should note that there is a third conception of empowerment in the
literature often referred to as the process approach, which defines empow-
erment in terms of the relationships between structural antecedents and
resulting psychological states. For example, “empowerment is conceptu-
alized here in terms of changes in cognitive variables (called task assess-
ments), which determine motivation in workers” (Thomas & Velthouse,
1990, pp. 666 – 667). In other words, the process approach roots empow-
erment in the relationships that exist between structural antecedents and
psychological reactions. This approach has not generated much research
per se, but it is embedded in studies that have sought to associate organi-
zational contexts with psychological states of empowerment (e.g., Kirkman
& Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, 1996).

97
98 MATHIEU, GILSON, AND RUDDY
Pfeffer, Cialdini, Hanna, & Knopof, 1998; Wall, Cordery, &
Clegg, 2002) and at the team (e.g., Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, &
Drasgow, 2000; Cook & Goff, 2002; Mills & Ungson, 2003) levels
of analysis. Conceptually, structural empowerment draws heavily
on work on job design (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and job
characteristics (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993) and, therefore,
focuses on practices such as job enrichment that result in self-
managing teams or autonomous work groups (Leach et al., 2003;
Manz & Sims, 1987). In essence, structural empowerment focuses
on work arrangements that alter the role of external leadership and
shift responsibilities to team members (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law,
2000; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001; Menon, 2001).
Advocates of the psychological approach consider empower-
ment as a constellation of experienced psychological states or
cognitions. One version of the psychological approach was ad-
vanced by Hyatt and Ruddy (1997), who submitted that team
empowerment is “the extent to which work group members have
the ability to make business decisions, are accountable for the
outcomes of their decisions, accept responsibility for the outcomes
of their decisions, and can solve problems on their own” (p. 562).
Hardy and Leiba-O’Sullivan (1998) and Hechanova-Alampay and
Beehr (2001) echoed this view and identified empowerment in
terms of members’ perceived authority to control how their work
is conducted and having responsibility for their work outcomes.
The essence of this two-dimensional definition of psychological
empowerment is that it is a psychological state defined primarily in
terms of members’ experience of authority and responsibility.
Another version of psychological empowerment defines it in terms
of a four-dimensional framework of employees’ perceptions: (a)
competence to perform their tasks well, (b) self-determination or
freedom to choose how they carry out their tasks, (c) sense of
meaningfulness that their work is important, and (d) belief that
their work has an impact on the effectiveness of the larger system
(cf. Kirkman & Rosen, 1997, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). As
with structural empowerment, psychological empowerment has
been examined at the individual (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988;
Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) and team levels (e.g.,
Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997; Kirkman & Rosen, 1997, 1999; Kirkman,
Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004).
Recently, Menon (2001) submitted that the structural and psy-
chological approaches are not antithetical; rather, they provide a
comprehensive perspective of the empowerment phenomenon. He
argued that understanding the process by which structuring acts
lead to changes in employees’ psychological states represents a
unifying view of empowerment. We concur with this position and
seek to differentiate antecedent conditions from the resulting psy-
chological state of empowerment, thereby providing a better un-
derstanding of the processes by which the two are associated.
Accordingly, we assess both perceptions of the work design fea-
tures (structural) and examine their relationships with team mem-
bers’ resulting psychological state of empowerment. This approach
allows us to examine the influence of organizational contextual
factors, beyond the structural design of work, on the resulting
psychological state (cf. Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, 1996).
Given the different versions of psychological empowerment, we
prefer the two-dimensional approach for a number of reasons.
First, the two-dimensional approach has a long research history
dating back to Lewin (1947) and is more consistent with practi-
tioner and dictionary definitions of empowerment. For example,
Ford and Fottler (1995) submitted that, “essentially, empowerment
involve[s] passing decision-making authority and responsibility
from managers to employees” (p. 21). Second, the two-
dimensional approach better enables the differentiation between
the psychological state of empowerment and other variables (see
Liden & Tewksbury, 1995; Menon, 2001). For example, the four-
dimensional approach uses members’ reports of task autonomy,
which are derived from the job characteristics literature (i.e., a
structural input), and perceptions of impact, which are similar to
self-reports of effectiveness (i.e., an outcome), thus blurring the
construct validity of empowerment as a psychological state
(Schwab, 1980). Consequently, we define team psychological em-
powerment as “team members’ collective belief that they have the
authority to control their proximal work environment and are
responsible for their team’s functioning.”
Theoretical Model and Hypotheses
Team effectiveness theories have long advocated IPO frame-
works (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Hackman & Morris, 1975).
Although substantial work has been conducted on the process 3
outcome relationships (cf. Marks et al., 2001; Weingart, 1997, for
reviews), relatively less attention has been devoted to the input 3
process relations. Moreover, Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, and
Jundt (2005) have submitted that IPO models should be expanded
to consider “the broader range of variables that are important
mediational influences with explanatory power for explaining vari-
ability in team performance and viability” (p. 520). Marks et al.
(2001) sought to differentiate two major classes of mediator vari-
ables in IPO frameworks. They defined processes as “interdepen-
dent team activities that orchestrate taskwork in employees’ pur-
suit of goals” (p. 358). In contrast, they referred to emergent states
as “cognitive, motivational, and affective states of teams, as op-
posed to the nature of their member interaction . . . . constructs that
characterize properties of the team that are typically dynamic in
nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes,
and outcomes” (p. 357). Kirkman et al. (2004) specifically referred
to team [psychological] empowerment as an emergent state. Fur-
ther, Marks et al. (2001) argued that team emergent states serve as
an influence on team processes. Accordingly, we advance and test
a model that depicts team psychological empowerment as a me-
diator variable linking inputs with processes.
Although the IPO framework has guided team researchers for
decades, more recently, appreciation of the role of organizational
context has been growing (Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom, 1999). For
example, Gully (2000) concluded, “organizational contexts can
have a strong influence on the behavior and performance of the
work team as an aggregate” (p. 32). In the empowerment literature,
factors such as organizational context and management practices
have been described as playing key roles in the success of inter-
vention efforts (i.e., Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman, 1999).
Kirkman and Rosen (1997, 1999) suggested that a more detailed
breakdown of contextual supports would likely yield further in-
sights into the primary drivers of empowerment. Our model
closely follows the foundation established by Kirkman and Rosen
(1997, 1999), particularly in terms of antecedents of empower-
ment. Thus, our underlying logic parallels theirs yet extends the
inquiry to include the mediating role of team processes. In addi-
tion, we sample different types of teams and use different types
 EMPOWERMENT AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS MODEL
and sources of criteria measures. Our hypothesized model is pre-
sented in Figure 1.
Antecedents of Team Psychological Empowerment
The present investigation stems from an evaluation of the suc-
cess of a structural empowerment intervention. The intervention
was introduced simultaneously across the entire country. Given the
large-scale rollout, we anticipated that there might be important
variations in the way in which the structural changes were imple-
mented as well as in the extent to which various supports were in
place for different teams. Accordingly, we assessed members’
perceptions of the resulting work design and of three different
types of general supports and model their influences on team (a)
psychological empowerment, (b) processes, and (c) outcomes.
Work Design
The structural view of empowerment suggests that the design of
work will enhance employees’ psychological empowerment and
thereby yield benefits in terms of increased effectiveness. Team
empowerment intervention designs have included the delegation of
authority and responsibility for certain human resource functions
(e.g., hiring), establishing, executing, and monitoring performance
strategies, and holding members responsible for their work out-
comes. For example, Wageman (2001) found that teams working
in empowered designs were better able to self-manage and exhib-
ited higher performance levels than those working in more tradi-
tional designs. Moreover, she found that the teams’ self-managing
behaviors mediated the relationships between design features and
team effectiveness. In short, we contend, as have others (e.g.,
Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Leach et al., 2003), that when the
structural design of work shifts control and responsibility from
external management to teams, members should experience greater
team psychological empowerment. Although such work arrange-
ments serve to enhance members’ feelings of empowerment, they
are not identical with them. So, for clarity, we refer to structural
Figure 1. Hypothesized model. HR ⫽ human resources.
99
empowering acts as work design and team psychological empow-
erment as team empowerment.
We anticipate that team empowerment levels will be a product
of work design features in concert with the influences of other
aspects of the embedding environment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997,
1999). Specifically, the design of team activities affects members’
capabilities of working together (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Kirk-
man and Rosen (1999) found support for positive relationships
between what they referred to as “team production/service respon-
sibilities” and “team empowerment.” Therefore, work designs that
have allocated tasks such as determining workflow, performance
strategies, and internal functioning from external managers to team
members (i.e., implemented structural empowerment designs)
should enhance members’ feelings of team empowerment. This led
to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: When work is structured such that team mem-
bers make their own human resource decisions, develop and
execute performance strategies, and coordinate their work
(i.e., work is high in structural team empowerment), they will
report greater psychological team empowerment.
Organizational Support
A supportive organizational context has long been purported as
a necessary condition for team effectiveness (Hackman, 1987).
Organizational context refers to sources of support that are exter-
nal to the team yet emanate from within the larger organizational
system (except for the influence of their external leader, which we
address next). One of the key components of a supportive organi-
zation is a climate in which teams can openly communicate with
one another and freely share and exchange information. In effect,
teams are distinct entities that are “coupled to one another and to
the organization as a whole” (Gully, 2000, p. 32). Indeed, Kirkman
and Rosen (1999) referred to this as providing teams with a
well-developed social structure and sociopolitical support. This
type of climate has also been referred to as “psychologically safe”
100 MATHIEU, GILSON, AND RUDDY
(Edmondson, 1999) because employees seeking input from others
are encouraged and nurtured rather than frowned on.
Mathieu, Marks, and Zaccaro (2001) advanced the notion of
multiteam systems (MTSs), an organizational arrangement in
which teams of teams work collectively to achieve collective
goals. Empowered teams, such as the ones examined here, often
work in larger organizational contexts that emulate MTSs and
therefore place a premium on interteam processes. In other words,
in traditionally designed organizations the coordination of actions,
sharing of sharing, development of a common vision, and so forth
across teams is the province of upper-level management. In em-
powered designs, the responsibility for cross-team processes shifts
to the teams and is enhanced (or constrained) by the extent to
which the larger organizational system facilitates such efforts.
Indeed, it has been found that effective cross-team processes
enhance team and MTSs outcomes when teams work in interde-
pendent settings (Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso,
2005). In addition, it has been suggested that for teams to function
effectively as self-contained units, they must have strong informa-
tion networks as well as communication and cooperation channels
both within and between teams (Cummings, 1978). A supportive
social structure with open communication and cooperation be-
tween teams should provide an enabling condition facilitating team
empowerment (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990; Kirkman &
Rosen, 1999). Indeed, Kirkman and Rosen (1999) found a signif-
icant positive relationship between team’s social structure and
their empowerment. This led to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Team members’ perceptions of organizational
support in terms of open communications and multiteam
cooperation will relate positively to their reported levels of
team psychological empowerment.
External Team Leadership
Initially, it was thought—and perhaps feared—that flatter
organizational structures would eliminate the role of external
managers. However, the results of self-directed work initiatives
have shown that there is a very real, albeit different, need for
effective external leaders (Manz & Sims, 1987). Effective ex-
ternal leadership has been shown to be an important driver in
the success of empowered organizations (Druskat & Wheeler,
2003; Sims & Manz, 1984). For instance, Arnold et al. (2000)
submitted that empowering leadership involves implementing
conditions that increase employees’ sense of control, removing
conditions that foster a sense of powerlessness and allowing
them the freedom to be as flexible as circumstances warrant. A
lack of effective external leader support can result in teams that
feel “abandoned” by their organizations (Hackman, 1990;
Lawler, 1986) and is often cited as one of the main reasons that
self-managed teams fail (Manz & Sims, 1987). Whereas em-
powered teams are more than simply self-managed, the influ-
ence of external leadership on either type of team is compara-
ble. However, with empowered teams, the role of external
leaders is fundamentally different than it is in traditionally
designed organizations in that the key functions shift from
focusing on day-to-day work activities to focusing on the pro-
curement of needed resources and team facilitation (Druskat &
Wheeler, 2003). Manz and Sims (1987) referred to this style of
leaderships as “leading others to lead themselves” (p. 119).
Kirkman and Rosen (1999) found support for the positive
influences of such external leadership on team empowerment.
This led to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: When team members perceive external leaders
as pursuing resource acquisition and playing a supportive
team facilitation role, they will report greater team psycho-
logical empowerment.
Team-Based Human Resource (HR) Practices
Traditionally, HR departments provide support functions to
work teams (e.g., hiring, training, disciplinary action), whereas
empowered teams often subsume such responsibilities. One func-
tion that often remains outside of the team, however, is training.
Providing teams with control and responsibility will not result in
improved outcomes unless members have the skills and abilities
needed to handle the task and decisions at hand (Liden & Tewks-
bury, 1995). Team training has long been described as a critical
component of team performance (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).
In essence, these arguments have suggested that the better-trained
teams will be able to exploit the freedom that empowerment
affords the best.
In addition to training, outcome feedback provision plays a
vital role in teams’ ability to learn and develop (Nadler, 1979).
Feedback cues can guide teams as to whether they are on course
or whether alternative goals and strategies are warranted
(Mesch, Farh, & Podsakoff, 1994; Pritchard, Jones, Roth,
Stebing, & Ekeberg, 1988). In an empowered environment,
teams are responsible for initiating their own corrective actions,
which places an even higher premium on accurate and timely
performance feedback. To this end, Druskat and Kayes (2000)
found that team feedback was significantly related to team
learning. Accordingly, we submit that team empowerment will
more readily develop in settings that provide high-quality for-
mal training with performance feedback. This led to the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: When team members perceive that team-based
HR practices in the form of formal training and feedback
mechanisms are provided, they will report greater team psy-
chological empowerment.
Consequences of Team Psychological Empowerment
Kirkman and Rosen (1999) found significant correlations be-
tween team empowerment and external managers’ ratings of team
proactivity, productivity, and customer service, as well as of a
variety of members’ affective reactions. Yet the question remains,
what is the mechanism by which empowerment has such effects?
We submit that team processes play a key mediational role in the
empowerment 3 outcome relationships. Team processes have
been defined as “how” teams get things done (Weingart, 1997).
Recently, Marks et al. (2001) identified three superordinate dimen-
sions of team processes: (a) transition, in which members engage
in planning, analysis, and goal setting types of activities; (b)
action, in which members’ interaction is focused on goal accom-
 EMPOWERMENT AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS MODEL
plishment, coordinating actions, and monitoring team progress;
and (c) interpersonal, in which members manage their own con-
flicts, motivation, and affect.
Team processes should provide a link between team empower-
ment and outcomes. The notion here is that to the extent team
members are empowered, they will be liberated to better execute
transition and action processes as they see fit. They will be freer to
plan and organize their work orders, implement different perfor-
mance strategies, coordinate their own actions, and otherwise align
their collective efforts with work demands to meet their perfor-
mance goals. Moreover, to the extent that teams are empowered to
perform HR functions, they will be better able to manage their own
interpersonal processes. For example, empowered teams have the
authority to decide what processes to use to handle conflict among
members or how to motivate members. Therefore, we submit that
team empowerment will facilitate effective team processes. This
led to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Team psychological empowerment will relate
positively to team processes.
Taken together, Hypotheses 1–5 suggest that team empowerment
will fully mediate the relationships between the four antecedents and
team processes. However, there could be significant direct effects as
well. Therefore, we conducted supplemental analyses in the context of
our structural model to test the mediational role of team empower-
ment. Although Marks et al. (2001) proposed that emergent states
such as empowerment are likely to be antecedents of team processes,
they also suggested that team processes might impact emergent states.
In other words, they left open the possibility of a reciprocal relation-
ship. To test such a possibility, we also examined, in a more explor-
atory fashion, whether team processes exhibit a reciprocal relationship
with team empowerment.
Team processes have a long history of relating significantly with
team outcomes such as quantitative performance and customer
satisfaction (see Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Ilgen et al., 2005;
Kozlowski & Bell, 2001; Marks et al., 2001, for reviews). The
notion is that the extent to which team members can effectively
execute important team functions, such as planning their work,
coordinating their efforts, and managing interpersonal processes,
they will be better positioned to respond to the needs of their
customers (Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997). Moreover, effective team pro-
cesses facilitate the accomplishment of team tasks and thereby
relate positively to quantitative performance. Therefore, we ad-
vance the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 6: Team processes will relate positively to cus-
tomer satisfaction.
Hypothesis 7: Team processes will relate positively to quan-
titative performance.
Finally, we highlight that, taken collectively, Hypotheses 5⫺7
suggest that team processes will fully mediate the relationships
between team psychological empowerment and both work out-
comes. Accordingly, we conducted supplemental analyses in the
context of our structural model to test these mediational
relationships.
101
Method
Participants and Setting
The participants in this study were Canadian customer service engineers
(CSEs) who worked for a major office equipment and technology organi-
zation. Their primary job functions included the repair and servicing of
office document production systems. This study was conducted after an
organizational intervention designed to empower work teams. Prior to the
reorganization, CSEs worked primarily as individuals in a traditional
top-down organizational structure in which they received job orders from
their managers and were compensated on the basis of individual perfor-
mance. The empowerment intervention created geographical clusters of
CSEs who were collectively responsible for planning, organizing, assign-
ing, and completing their work, along with introducing work process
improvements. Teams were given greater latitude to make significant
financial decisions (e.g., to repair or replace existing equipment), and
technology aids were introduced to give the CSEs greater access to cus-
tomer and equipment histories and better means to adjust and integrate
members’ efforts. Moreover, CSE teams became responsible for their HR
decisions, including selecting new members, performance monitoring,
recognition, and rewards. Finally, the compensation structure was changed
to be based, in part, on team performance. Supplemental data and analyses
revealed that employees perceived that their work was significantly rede-
signed as intended and that they felt greater empowerment after the
intervention than they did before.2
Individual team members completed surveys, on company time, that
assessed perceptions of work design, organizational supports, external
leadership, team processes, and empowerment. They were assured of
confidentiality and returned their surveys in sealed envelopes to company
HR representatives. Although we received 504 surveys in total (57%
response rate), we have included only teams for which we received two or
more surveys and which had at least a 25% response rate (teams ⫽ 121,
respondents ⫽ 452). This represents a participation rate of 51% of the
target sample. The number of people in each team ranged from 2 to 11,
with a median of 6. To help ensure confidentiality, no demographic
information was collected from respondents. However, company records
indicate that approximately 90% of this population is male and that
company tenure ranged from 4 to 28 years, with a mean of 14.3 years
(SD ⫽ 6.67). This sample came from the same organization that sponsored
work by Wageman (1995, 2001); Gilson, Shalley, and Blum (2001); and
Hyatt and Ruddy (1997). However, our work is entirely separate and does
not include any data that have appeared in those publications.
Measures
The surveys contained a number of items designed for general organi-
zational assessment purposes. For our use, we concentrated on items and
scales that were aligned with the constructs depicted in Figure 1. All items
were answered on a 1–5-point Likert-type scale. We used James, Demaree,
and Wolf’s (1984) rwg agreement index, with the rectangular response
distribution as a comparison, to justify aggregating individual members’
response to the team level. Median rwg values ⱖ .70 are generally consid-
ered sufficient to warrant aggregation. In addition, we report intraclass
correlations (ICCs), which represent whether measures are sufficiently
reliable to model effects at the team level (Bliese, 2000). The ICCs were
calculated based on a one-way random-effects analysis of variance model
in which team membership serve as levels of an independent variable and
members’ scale responses are the dependent variable. In all instances, the
analysis of variance F values were significant ( p ⬍ .01). ICC1 represents
2
Further details regarding pre–post intervention comparisons are avail-
able from the authors.
102 MATHIEU, GILSON, AND RUDDY
the reliability of a single rating of the team construct, whereas ICC2
represents the reliability of the average of team members’ responses.
We calculated team-level internal consistencies for all of our scales
using the average item response per team as the input. This strategy aligns
the measurement reliability information with the level of analyses used in
the substantive tests (Chen, Mathieu, & Bliese, 2004). Alpha is the lower
bound of scale internal consistency (Cortina, 1993) and is affected by the
number of items on a scale. Whereas some of the subscales we report fall
short of the conventional .70 cutoff, this is not that disconcerting for our
purposes because we are using the subscales (rather than items) as indica-
tors of the latent constructs depicted in Figure 1 (see Landis, Beal, &
Tesluk, 2000). In other words, rather than using less reliable individual
items as indicators, we used substantively based item parcels as indicators
in the confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) and structural model tests to
reduce the number of parameters to be estimated.
CSEs rated 17 features of their work design on a 5-point scale that
ranged from 1 (manager makes decisions and informs team members)
through 5 (team makes decisions and informs manager). The items were
designed specifically to address the three primary foci of the redesign
intervention: (a) HR decisions included seven aspects (e.g., selection of
new hires) and exhibited acceptable reliabilities and agreement (␣ ⫽ .63;
rwg ⫽ .93; ICC1 ⫽ .29; ICC2 ⫽ .60); (b) work coordination assessed four
facets (e.g., workload distribution among members) and had an acceptable
aggregate internal consistency and agreement index (␣ ⫽ .64; rwg ⫽ .88;
ICC1 ⫽ .38; ICC2 ⫽ .70); and (c) performance strategies included six items
(e.g., “how to deal with poor performing machines”) and evidenced good
psychometrics properties (␣ ⫽ .76; rwg ⫽ .92; ICC1 ⫽ .30; ICC2 ⫽ .62).
Organizational support describes characteristics of the larger system or
context and was assessed with two subscales. Multiteam cooperation was
assessed with two items (e.g., “there is good cooperation among teams in
my branch”; ␣ ⫽ .73; rwg ⫽ .80; ICC1 ⫽ .20; ICC2 ⫽ .48) and open
communications was assessed with three items (e.g., “members of my team
feel that we are listened to in this organization”; ␣ ⫽ .86; rwg ⫽ .87;
ICC1 ⫽ .13; ICC2 ⫽ .36).
External team leadership was measured with two subscales as indicators:
(a) resource acquisition, with two items (e.g., “our manager gets us what-
ever we need to do our job effectively”; ␣ ⫽ .75; rwg ⫽ .90; ICC1 ⫽ .27;
ICC2 ⫽ .36) and (b) team facilitation, which was measured with two items
(e.g., “our manager does a good job of building teamwork”; ␣ ⫽ .86; rwg ⫽
.91; ICC1 ⫽ .20; ICC2 ⫽ .49).
Team-based HR practices was assessed with two scales: (a) formal
training, with two items (e.g., “members of my team are well trained on the
products we service”; ␣ ⫽ .48; rwg ⫽ .87; ICC1 ⫽ .10; ICC2 ⫽ .30) and
(b) feedback mechanisms, a three-item scale (e.g., “members of my team
get regular feedback about performance”; ␣ ⫽ .87; rwg ⫽ .89; ICC1 ⫽ .24;
ICC2 ⫽ .54).
Team empowerment describes the state in which members share a
collective sense that they have the responsibility and the authority to
control their work. Accordingly, we used two scales: authority, three items
(e.g., “my team is empowered to change our work processes in order to
improve our performance”; ␣ ⫽ .82; rwg ⫽ .94; ICC1 ⫽ .10; ICC2 ⫽ .29)
and responsibility, three items (e.g., “members of my team are responsible
for determining the best way to satisfy our customers’ requirements”; ␣ ⫽
.88; rwg ⫽ .94; ICC1 ⫽ .20; ICC2 ⫽ .48).
Team processes were indexed using three scales that correspond to
Marks et al.’s (2001) superordinate categories, each with three items:
transition (i.e., “members of my team discuss” [a] “our performance
vision,” [b] “what we can do day to day to make our performance vision
a reality,” and [c] “our district’s objectives”; ␣ ⫽ .88; rwg ⫽ .92; ICC1 ⫽
.12; ICC2 ⫽ .34), action (i.e., “members of my team” [a] “take the time we
need to share task-related information,” [b] “actively learn from one
another,” and [c] “effectively communicate with each other throughout the
workday”; ␣ ⫽ .78; rwg ⫽ .90; ICC1 ⫽ .26; ICC2 ⫽ .57), and interpersonal
(i.e., “members of my team” [a] “create an environment of openness and
trust,” [b] “really trust each other,” and [c] “think in terms of what is best
for the team”; ␣ ⫽ .87; rwg ⫽ .93; ICC1 ⫽ .33; ICC2 ⫽ .65).
Quantitative performance was indexed using three archival measures
that are routinely gathered by the organization to track team effectiveness
and determine team rewards. These measures were tabulated for 3 months
following the survey data collection and have been described by Hyatt and
Ruddy (1997). Because of their confidential nature, they were converted to
z scores. “Machine reliability” refers to the average number of copies made
by machines between service calls. “Response time” refers to the average
length of time between the customer’s call for service and the arrival of one
or more team members, and “parts expense” refers to the percentage of
budget associated with replacing parts. Because lower response time and
parts expense represent more effective performance, we multiplied their z
scores by ⫺1 so that higher values correspond to better performance.
Customer satisfaction was measured by the company through surveys
sent directly to a random sample of customers to yield a representative
sample for each type of machine serviced by each team. As did Hyatt and
Ruddy (1997), we used the following item as an overall index of customer
satisfaction: “How was your overall experience with the company’s equip-
ment maintenance service?” Responses were made on a 5-point scale that
ranged from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). The surveys were
keyed according to which team was responsible for the customers’ ma-
chines and were returned to corporate headquarters. On average, 76 sur-
veys (range ⫽ 6 –170) per team were returned over a 3-month period
following the data collection. An overall index was calculated for each
team by averaging their customers’ responses and then converting that
average to a z score.
Results
Structural Equation Model Tests
The psychometric properties and descriptive statistics for all
measures used in the structural model tests are presented in Table
1. We used Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step strategy to
test the model depicted in Figure 1. We first fit a CFA model, and
then we tested a series of structural models. The survey subscales
noted above were used as indicators of the four antecedents,
empowerment, and team process latent variables. The three archi-
val scores were used as indicators of quantitative team perfor-
mance, and the average customer satisfaction survey response was
used as a single indicator of its corresponding latent variable. We
report the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) and the
standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMSR; Hu & Bentler,
1999) to gauge model fit. The CFI has been identified as the best
approximation of the population value for a single model, with
values ⱖ .90 considered indicative of good fit (Medsker, Williams,
& Holahan, 1994). SRMSR is a measure of the average standard-
ized residual per degree of freedom with values ⱕ .08 considered
a “relatively good fit for the model” and values ⱕ .10 considered
as “fair” (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). We also report chi-square
values that provide a statistical basis for comparing the relative fit
of nested models. Table 2 presents a summary of the fit indices for
the various models that were tested.
Confirmatory factor models. Using the covariance matrix, we
estimated the CFA model, which yielded good fit indices, ␹2(108,
N ⫽ 121) ⫽ 184.23, p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .92; SRMSR ⫽ .08. All
indicators exhibited significant ( p ⬍ .05) relationships with their
intended latent variable. In contrast, we fit a null latent CFA model
(which constrains the correlations among the latent variables to
zero) to the data, ␹2(136, N ⫽ 121) ⫽ 492.24, p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .60;
SRMSR ⫽ .15, and obtained a significantly worse fit,
 EMPOWERMENT AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS MODEL 103

Table 1
Variable Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1. HR decisions .63
2. Work coordination .67 .64
3. Performance strategies .56 .71 .76
4. Multiteam cooperation .11 .01 .02 .73
5. Open communications .21 .27 .22 .39 .86
6. Manager resource acquisition ⫺.01 ⫺.00 .05 .26 .43 .75
7. Manager team facilitation .04 ⫺.02 .04 .32 .43 .87 .86
8. Team-based HR practices .14 .11 .12 .10 .29 .41 .43 .48
9. Feedback mechanisms .02 ⫺.01 .06 .20 .43 .52 .47 .46 .87
10. Empowerment: authority .19 .34 .28 .21 .54 .34 .31 .36 .38 .82
11. Empowerment: responsibility .26 .43 .42 .15 .58 .37 .34 .39 .43 .55 .88
12. Transition processes .09 .05 .15 .31 .46 .49 .46 .47 .62 .45 .60 .88
13. Action processes .21 .21 .25 .29 .30 .29 .34 .27 .30 .33 .49 .45 .78
14. Interpersonal processes .18 .27 .36 .32 .29 .28 .32 .29 .19 .30 .48 .38 .61 .87
15. Machine reliabilitya .33 .30 .22 .00 .01 .05 .07 .23 .05 .13 .16 .09 .27 .11 1.00
16. Response timea .37 .21 .16 ⫺.05 ⫺.10 .08 .04 .27 ⫺.03 .00 .05 .03 .11 .21 .42 1.00
17. Parts expensea .15 .25 .16 .15 .11 .17 .17 .18 .24 .12 .28 .21 .21 .15 .45 .14 1.00
18. Customer satisfactiona .00 .08 .13 .10 .03 .14 .09 .11 .09 .01 .14 .24 .20 .14 .19 .33 .14 1.00
M 3.39 4.22 3.98 2.82 3.06 3.67 3.73 3.75 3.24 3.86 3.98 3.68 3.89 3.78 .00 .00 .00 .00
SD 0.51 0.59 0.58 0.56 0.57 0.49 0.52 0.44 0.61 0.39 0.50 0.46 0.47 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Note. Diagonal entries are scale reliabilities. N ⫽ 121 teams. Correlations: .19, p ⬍ .05; 兩.23兩, p ⬍ .01; and 兩.31兩, p ⬍ .01. HR ⫽ human resources.
a
Z scores.

␹2difference(28) ⫽ 308.01, p ⬍ .01. These results indicate that the
measurement properties fit reasonably well, and there is sufficient
covariance among the latent variables to warrant examining struc-
tural models.
Notably, it is quite possible that although the full CFA model
might exhibit acceptable fit indices, portions of it might not exhibit
sufficient discriminant validity among a subset of latent variables.
Therefore, we fit several “more focused” CFAs, which featured
subsets of latent variables and their indicators, to better ensure the
discriminant validity of our measures. One such analysis focused
strictly upon the nine indicators of the four antecedent variables
and evidenced quite good model fit, ␹2(21, N ⫽ 121) ⫽ 19.63, ns;
CFI ⫽ 1.00; SRMSR ⫽ 0.0. We then collapsed the indicators of
the two highest correlating latent variables (i.e., external team
leadership and team-based HR practices, r ⫽ .71, p ⬍ .01) and fit
a three-factor model. The three-factor model exhibited reasonable
overall fit, ␹2(24, N ⫽ 121) ⫽ 35.89, p ⬍ .05; CFI ⫽ .97;
SRMSR ⫽ .06, but was significantly worse than the four-factor
model, ␹2difference(3) ⫽ 16.26, p ⬍ .01. This provides ample
evidence for the discriminant validity of the four antecedent vari-
ables. Similarly, we fit the five indicators of the work design and
empowerment latent variables to both a two-factor and a single-
factor model. Whereas the two-factor model exhibited quite good
fit indices, ␹2(4, N ⫽ 121) ⫽ 3.94, ns; CFI ⫽ 1.00; SRMSR ⫽ 0.0,
the single-factor model revealed a poor fit, ␹2(5, N ⫽ 121) ⫽
32.72, p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .88; SRMSR ⫽ .21, that was significantly
worse, ␹2difference(1) ⫽ 28.78, p ⬍ .01. This provides support for
the contention that employees can perceive the difference between
indicators of structural and psychological empowerment. Last, we
fit the five indicators of the empowerment and team process latent

Table 2
Model Fit Indices

Model df ␹2 CFI SRMSR

Measurement 108 184.23** .92 .08

Null latent 136 492.24** .60 .15
Hypothesized 123 229.82** .88 .09
Empowerment 43 processes 122 228.82** .88 .09
Work design and supports 3 processes
(including empowerment) 119 213.49** .89 .08
Work design and supports 3 processes
(excluding empowerment paths) 124 338.30** .76 .12
Empowerment 3 outcomes (including processes) 121 225.95** .88 .09
Empowerment 3 outcomes (excluding processes
paths) 124 293.77** .81 .11
Revised model 121 202.68** .91 .08

Note. N ⫽ 121 teams. CFI ⫽ comparative fit index, SRMSR ⫽ standardized root-mean-square residual.
** p ⬍ .01.
104 MATHIEU, GILSON, AND RUDDY
variables to both a two-factor and a single-factor model. The
two-factor model exhibited quite good fit indices, ␹2(4, N ⫽
121) ⫽ 17.56, p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .93; SRMSR ⫽ 0.06. Although the
single-factor model also exhibited a reasonable fit, ␹2(5, N ⫽
121) ⫽ 22.34, p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .91; SRMSR ⫽ .07, it was
significantly worse, ␹2difference(1) ⫽ 4.78, p ⬍ .05. This analysis
provides support for the contention that employees can perceive
the difference between an emergent state of empowerment and
their team processes.
Structural models. We fit the hypothesized structural model
and obtained “fair” model fit indices, ␹2(123, N ⫽ 121) ⫽ 229.39,
p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .88; SRMSR ⫽ .085, although the model did differ
significantly from the measurement model, ␹2difference(14) ⫽
44.59, p ⬍ .01, and, therefore, has room for improvement. The
results of this analysis are presented in Figure 2. As shown, all of
the hypothesized paths were significant in the hypothesized model
( p ⬍ .05), with the exception of the unique influence of external
team leadership on team empowerment (␤ ⫽ ⫺.09, ns). Therefore,
Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were supported, whereas Hypoth-
esis 3 was not. Next, we fit a model that added a path from team
processes to empowerment to test the exploratory reciprocal rela-
tionship. This model did not fit significantly better, ␹2difference(1) ⫽
.57, ns, than the hypothesized model, nor was the path from
processes to empowerment significant, ␹2(122, N ⫽ 121) ⫽
228.82, p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .88; SRMSR ⫽ .085. These results suggest
that the hypothesized empowerment 3 processes order is more
consistent with the data.
Additional Analyses
Mediational tests. We fit additional structural models to spe-
cifically test the two implied mediational relationships in our
overall model. First, we tested the mediation role of team empow-
erment linking the antecedent variables and team processes. Sec-
ond, we tested the mediation role of team processes linking team
Figure 2. Results of hypothesized model. N ⫽ 121. *p ⬍ .05.
empowerment and the two outcome variables. In both instances,
we developed two additional models to provide adequate tests of
mediation (James & Brett, 1984). First, we created for comparison
purposes a more inclusive baseline model that added direct paths
from the exogenous variable(s) to the endogenous variable(s) in
each instance. Second, we eliminated all paths leading to and
stemming from the mediator variable from these more inclusive
baseline models, but we left the mediator latent variable in the
model. Nested comparisons between the more inclusive models
and the models dropping the mediator paths provide a test of the
value of the mediator. Notably, there should be significant rela-
tionships between the exogenous and endogenous variables in this
latter model to fulfill the x 3 y precondition for tests of mediation
(cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986; James & Brett, 1984).
The more inclusive model for testing team empowerment as a
mediator exhibited good fit indices, ␹2(119, N ⫽ 121) ⫽ 213.49,
p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .89; SRMSR ⫽ .081, and, in fact, fit better than
did the hypothesized model, ␹2difference(4) ⫽ 15.90, p ⬍ .01. We
next tested a model that included the empowerment latent variable
but dropped all paths leading to, or coming from, it. This latter
model (without empowerment paths), evidenced very poor fit,
␹2(124, N ⫽ 121) ⫽ 338.30, p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .76; SRMSR ⫽ .12,
and differed significantly from the inclusive baseline model,
␹2difference(5) ⫽ 124.81, p ⬍ .01. These results provide substantial
support for the notion that team empowerment serves as a partial
mediating mechanism linking work design, organizational support,
team based HR practices, and team processes.
The more inclusive baseline model for testing team processes as
a mediator exhibited fair fit indices, ␹2(121, N ⫽ 121) ⫽ 225.95,
p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .88; SRMSR ⫽ .085, and did not fit better than the
hypothesized model, ␹2difference(2) ⫽ 3.87, ns. The second model
(without team process paths), evidenced very poor fit, ␹2(124, N ⫽
121) ⫽ 293.77, p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .81; SRMSR ⫽ .110, and differed
significantly from the inclusive baseline model, ␹2difference(3) ⫽
 EMPOWERMENT AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS MODEL
67.82, p ⬍ .01. Notably, team empowerment exhibited a signifi-
cant direct relationship with quantitative performance (␤ ⫽ .25,
p ⬍ .01) in this model, although it did not with customer satisfac-
tion (␤ ⫽ .13, ns). Therefore, the precondition for testing mediated
relationships was fulfilled for performance but not for customer
satisfaction. In summary, our results provide substantial support
for the notion that team processes fully mediate the relationships
between empowerment and quantitative performance. In contrast,
our results indicate that the relationship between empowerment
and customer satisfaction is not mediated yet is linked indirectly
through team processes.
Model revisions. The results previously chronicled provide
substantial support for the hypothesized model, although it still
differed significantly from both the measurement model and from
the inclusive baseline model used to test the mediational role of
team empowerment. Therefore, we developed a revised model to
further our understanding of the underlying relationships. Natu-
rally, such revisions are exploratory and should be interpreted
cautiously. First, we dropped the nonsignificant path from external
team leadership to empowerment. Second, we examined the model
modification indices and concluded that the lack of fit stemmed
primarily from a missing direct path from team-based HR practices
to team processes (␤ ⫽ .59, p ⬍ .01) and missing direct links from
organizational support (␤ ⫽ ⫺.35, p ⬍ .01) and work design (␤ ⫽
.43, p ⬍ .01) to quantitative performance. Incorporating these four
changes yielded the revised model presented in Figure 3 that
exhibited good fit indices, ␹2(121, N ⫽ 121) ⫽ 202.68, p ⬍ .01;
CFI ⫽ .91; SRMSR ⫽ .08, and did not differ significantly from the
measurement model, ␹2difference(13) ⫽ 18.45, ns. In summary, the
revised model results indicated that team empowerment partially
mediates the influence of team-based HR practices on team pro-
cesses. Moreover, the empowerment 3 process mediational path
accounts for the influences of organizational support and work
design features on quantitative performance. Finally, the negative
relationship between organizational supports and quantitative per-
formance is contrary to what we would have anticipated.
Unpacking team processes. The model tests above treated
team process as a unified omnibus latent variable. Yet Marks et al.
(2001) argued that the three superordinate dimensions of team
processes (i.e., transition, action, and interpersonal) may exhibit
Figure 3. Results of revised structural model. N ⫽ 121. *p ⬍ .05.
105
different relationships with outcome variables. To test this possi-
bility, we regressed customer satisfaction and quantitative perfor-
mance on the three team process subscales.3 We formed a perfor-
mance composite for these analyses by averaging the standardized
scores for the three components, each multiplied by its respective
weight from the CFA analysis.
Both transition (r ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .05) and action processes (r ⫽ .20,
p ⬍ .05) evidenced significant correlations with customer satis-
faction, although interpersonal processes did not (r ⫽ .14, ns).
Simultaneously regressing customer satisfaction on the three vari-
ables yielded R2 ⫽ .066, p ⬍ .05. Inspection of the individual beta
weights, however, illustrated that transition processes had a mar-
ginal relationship (␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .10), whereas neither action
processes (␤ ⫽ .11, ns) nor interpersonal processes (␤ ⫽ .01, ns)
were significant.
The composite quantitative performance criterion correlated sig-
nificantly with action (r ⫽ .26, p ⬍ .05) and interpersonal pro-
cesses (r ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .05), but only marginally with transition
processes (r ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .10). Simultaneously regressing the
composite on the three variables yielded R2 ⫽ .074, p ⬍ .05.
Inspection of the individual beta weights, however, illustrates that
action processes had a marginal relationship (␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .10),
whereas neither transition processes (␤ ⫽ .02, ns) nor interper-
sonal processes (␤ ⫽ .08, ns) were significant. In summary, these
more detailed analyses are consistent with the idea that the col-
lective aspects of the three team processes are working in concert
in this study to drive the overall effects. However, these findings
also suggest that there may be some utility in more detailed
approaches in the future.
Discussion
The aim of this research was to test a model of team psycho-
logical empowerment in the context of an integrated IPO frame-
work. Additionally, our goals were to examine whether team
processes play a mediational role linking empowerment and team
outcomes and to incorporate methodological advances into the
study of team empowerment. Using perceptual survey data, archi-
val performance measures, and external customer satisfaction rat-
ings and structural equation modeling, we found that team em-
powerment is significantly influenced by the embedding
organizational environment. Both organizational support and
team-based HR practices exhibited significant positive influences
on empowerment beyond the influence of work design features.
These results are consistent with our hypotheses, as well as with
prior research (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). These findings extend
further prior empowerment research in that we found that team
processes fully mediated the relationship between empowerment
and quantitative performance. Alternatively, although customer
satisfaction and empowerment were not correlated significantly,
they were associated indirectly through each having significant
relationships with team processes. Our data further suggest that
empowerment, as a psychological state, influences team process,
but the relationship is not reciprocal. Finally, our revised model
suggests that empowerment and team processes do not fully me-
diate the relationships between work design features and organi-
zational supports and quantitative performance.
3
Further details available from John E. Mathieu.
106 MATHIEU, GILSON, AND RUDDY
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Our hypothesized model received substantial (although not com-
plete) support. Team empowerment evidenced the anticipated positive
relationship with team processes, which in turn, related significantly
to both customer satisfaction and quantitative team performance. The
more detailed mediational analyses revealed that an empowerment 3
performance relationship was fully mediated by team processes. In
contrast, empowerment exhibited no significant relationship with cus-
tomer satisfaction but was associated indirectly via team processes.
Although we hypothesized and found support for parallel relation-
ships linking team processes with customer satisfaction and quantita-
tive performance, the two criteria were substantially different and only
marginally correlated. This implies that the effects of empowerment
are fairly ubiquitous and relate positively to a number of the different
outcomes, but perhaps through different underlying mechanisms. Our
supplemental analyses suggest that the indirect relationship between
empowerment and customer satisfaction might be most attributable to
enhanced transition processes. In contrast, our results suggest that
action processes were perhaps serving as the primary mediating
mechanism through which empowerment relates to quantitative
performance.
Whereas our hypothesized model implies that the team empower-
ment 3 process mechanism fully mediates the relationship between
work design and the various supports on team outcomes, our revised
model suggests that the underlying relationships were more complex
than initially anticipated. Specifically, team-based HR practices not
only related significantly to team empowerment but also exhibited a
direct positive relationship with team processes. This suggests that the
team-based HR functions went beyond facilitating feelings of respon-
sibility and control among members to provide them with the neces-
sary skills to execute effective team processes. Similarly, the work
design features not only related positively to team empowerment but
also evidenced direct positive relationships with quantitative perfor-
mance. Therefore, it appears that structural empowerment efforts are
not only beneficial in terms of their impact on psychological states but
also directly enhance team effectiveness by shifting the nexus of
decision making to those in the best position to handle problems. In
other words, freeing CSEs to make on-the-spot decisions about how
to deal with a machine (e.g., to repair or replace parts) enables them
to better manage their environment and enhances quantitative perfor-
mance. These findings are consistent with prior research that has
found that when teams are proactive and free to shape their work
environment, they are more effective compared with teams that re-
main in a reactive mode (i.e., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Tesluk &
Mathieu, 1999).
Two other results warrant special mention. First, although ex-
ternal team leadership evidenced a significant correlation with
team empowerment, it failed to exhibit a significant unique influ-
ence in the context of the structural model. This finding may be
attributable to a statistical by-product of its high covariance with
other antecedents, although supplemental analyses indicated that
multicollinearity was not a serious problem.4 Alternatively, exter-
nal leaders may, indeed, influence team empowerment indirectly
by shaping aspects of the work environment. That said, our result
may be a substantive finding in that the role of external managers
was simply overshadowed by the work design and other forms of
support. Additional evidence obtained from the organization, how-
ever, suggested that whereas the role of teams had changed dra-
matically, external managers had not substantially altered their
behaviors. In other words, it could be that the external managers
were simply not yet “on board” with the change and had not fully
bought into the new work environment. Certainly, empowered
designs such as the one we studied pose threats to the traditional
role of external leaders. Developing the support of external leaders
has been seen as difficult to engender, yet critical to the effective-
ness of empowering interventions (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). In
fact, the sponsoring organization focused its attention on develop-
ing external management support for the empowerment initiative
as a consequence of this study. Nevertheless, this relationship
warrants further research.
The negative direct influence of organizational support on quanti-
tative performance is a more puzzling finding. One potential expla-
nation could be that teams might hamper their own performance if
they allocate substantial resources to cross-team efforts to maximize
overall effectiveness (Choi, 2002). However, this finding is likely to
be spurious because none of the zero-order correlations between the
organizational support subscales and the indices of quantitative per-
formance were significant. In other words, the evidence is more
consistent with this being a statistical artifact attributable to a
suppressor-type effect than a substantive relationship. Because we did
not anticipate this relationship, and it is counterintuitive, it needs to be
replicated before we have any confidence in it.
Study Limitations and Future Research
Our structural model tests relied heavily on data collected from
team members, although the outcomes came from separate sources
and were lagged in time. Consequently, our causal ordering of the
antecedents, empowerment, and team processes are subject to
debate. Although we formulated a model that is consistent with
traditional IPO theory and research (e.g., Hackman & Morris,
1975; Marks et al., 2001) and tested whether a reciprocal process
3 empowerment relationship was evident, nevertheless causal
inferences would be strengthened by the use of a complete longi-
tudinal design that assesses all substantive variables multiple
times.
Regarding directions for future research, our supplemental anal-
yses suggest that it may prove informative to examine the dynam-
ics of team processes at a more fine-grained level. Marks et al.
(2001) differentiated three different transition, action, and inter-
personal bases of team processes and argued that they exhibited
differential effects with team outcomes. Of importance, their work
was cast in a time-based episodic framework, which was not
feasible to test in our design. However, we encourage future
researchers to examine the development of team emergent states,
such as empowerment, along with team processes and outcomes,
to better illuminate the dynamic nature of their relationships.
Future investigations could also use more explicit multilevel de-
signs and analyses to incorporate contextual influences on team em-
powerment effects. For example, we modeled the influences of orga-
nizational supports operationalized at the team level of analysis.
However, teams are also subject to the influence of the larger embed-
ding organizational environment (Gully, 2000; Guzzo & Dickson,
4
Detailed explanations of the analyses referred to in this section are
available from John E. Mathieu.
 EMPOWERMENT AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS MODEL
1996; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), and it would be valuable to model
divisional, organizational, or even national influences on the effec-
tiveness of empowered team designs. Finally, future investigations
should seek to expand the array of antecedent variables that might
influence the effectiveness of empowered teams. For instance, these
could include team composition, task features, and the types of teams
that are sampled. Because our teams were all fairly homogeneous and
were all service teams, those factors certainly serve as boundaries for
generalizations. Replications with more diverse teams performing
different tasks are warranted. Finally, we adopted a fairly narrow,
albeit traditional, definition and operationalization of team empower-
ment that focused on collective perceptions of authority and respon-
sibility for work. Other researchers (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999)
have used the four-dimensional approach to the study of team em-
powerment. Future research should consider the relative advantages
and disadvantages of the two approaches and, perhaps, conduct com-
parison studies.
Conclusion
Our results are both consistent with and extend previous re-
search that has shown empowering work designs are correlated
with enhanced team effectiveness (Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997; Kirkman
& Rosen, 1999). In addition, our study highlights the need to
consider, and to adapt, the larger organizational context to support
an empowerment initiative. A work redesign effort will not yield
optimal levels of empowerment unless it is complemented by
various support mechanisms, such as facilitating organizational
climate and team-based HR practices. This highlights the fact that
for empowerment interventions to be effective, they must be
comprehensive and not simply introduce limited changes in the
design of work.
References
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management,
efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 53, 625– 642.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design:
Predictors of new product team performance. Organizational Science, 3,
321–341.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411– 423.
Arnold, J. A. Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The
Empowering Leadership Questionnaire: The construction and validation
of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 21, 249 –269.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1183.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate
renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 107, 238 –246.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein
& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349 –
381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
107
Bowen, D., & Lawler, E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers:
What, why, how, and when? Sloan Management Review, 33, 31–39.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. In. K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 136 –162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between
work group characteristics & effectiveness: Implications for designing
effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823– 847.
Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). A framework for conducting
multilevel construct validation. In F. J. Dansereau & F. Yammarino (Eds.),
Research in multi-level issues: The many faces of multi-level issues (Vol. 3,
pp. 273–303). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
Choi, J. N. (2002). External activities and team effectiveness—Review and
theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33, 181–208.
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1994). The effectiveness of self-
managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47, 13– 43.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating
theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471– 482.
Cook, R. A., & Goff, J. L. (2002). Coming of age with self-managed teams:
Dealing with a problem employee. Journal of Business & Psychology,
16, 485– 496.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory
and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98 –104.
Cummings, T. G. (1978). Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical
synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3, 625– 634.
Druskat, V. U., & Kayes, D. C. (2000). Learning versus performance in
short-term project teams. Small Group Research, 31, 328 –353.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary:
The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 46, 435– 457.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350 –383.
Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree.
Academy of Management Executive, 9, 21–29.
Gilson, L. L., Shalley, C. E., & Blum, T. C. (2001). Team and organizational
attitudes as a lens and mirror impacting customer satisfaction; an empirical
test in self-managed teams. Journal of Quality Management, 6, 235–256.
Gully, S. M. (2000). Work teams research: Recent findings and future
trends. In M. M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Work teams: Past, present and future
(pp. 25– 44). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent
research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 47, 307–338.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, R. (1990). Groups that work and those that don’t. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction
processes, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed
integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 45–99). New York: Academic Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of
work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 16, 250 –279.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. A. (1993). Re-engineering the corporation: A
manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper Collins.
Hardy, C., & Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment:
Implications for research and practice. Human Relations, 51, 451– 483.
Hechanova-Alampay, R., & Beehr, T. A. (2001). Empowerment, span of
control, and safety performance in work teams after workforce reduc-
tion. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 275–282.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
108 MATHIEU, GILSON, AND RUDDY
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship
between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into
the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553–585.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in
Organizations: From I-P-O models to IMOI models. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56, 517–543.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for
mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within group
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment.
Research in Organizational Change and Development, 10, 131–167.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Anteced-
ents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management
Journal, 42, 58 –74.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, T., & Gibson, C. (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.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. 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, 597– 617.
Klein, K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research and
methods in organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. (1999).
Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from
the healthcare industry. Group and Organizational Management, 24,
71–91.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2001). Work groups and teams in
organizations. In W. Borman, D. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Compre-
hensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychol-
ogy (pp. 334 –375). New York: Wiley.
Landis, R., Beal, D., & Tesluk, P. (2000). A comparison of approaches to
forming composites measures in structural equations models. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 3, 186 –207.
Lawler, E. E. (1986). High involvement management, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effects of
empowerment on job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators
of complex technology. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 76, 27–52.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life;
social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1, 143–153.
Liden, R. C., & Tewksbury, T. W. (1995). Empowerment in work teams.
In G. Ferris, S. Rosen, & D. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human
resources management (pp. 386 – 403). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves:
The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 32, 106 –129.
Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., & Alonso,
A. A. (2005). The importance of goal hierarchies and teamwork pro-
cesses for multi-team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
964 –-971.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based
framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 356 –376.
Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). Multi-team systems.
In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, (Vol. 2,
pp. 289 –313), London, Sage.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of
current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior
and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20,
439 – 464.
Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological
approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 153–180.
Mesch, D. J., Farh, J. L., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Effects of feedback
sign on group goal setting, strategies, and performance. Group and
Organizational Management, 19, 309 –333.
Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural
empowerment: Organizational constitution and trust as controls. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 28, 143–153.
Nadler, A. (1979). The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A
review of the experimental research. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 23, 309 –338.
Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (1999). Empowered selling
teams: How shared leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3), 35–51.
Peters, T. J. (1992). Liberation management: Necessary disorganization
for the nanosecond nineties, New York: Knopf.
Pfeffer, J., Cialdini, R. B., Hanna, B., & Knopof, K. (1998). Faith in
supervision and the self-enhancement bias: Two psychological reasons
why managers don’t empower workers. Basic & Applied Social Psy-
chology, 20, 313–321.
Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E.
(1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives, on organi-
zational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337–358.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A
decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471– 499.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. Re-
search in Organizational Behavior, 2, 3– 43.
Sims, H. P. J., & Manz, C. C. (1984). Observing leader verbal behavior:
Toward reciprocal determinism in leadership theory. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 6, 222–232.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace:
Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effective-
ness. In E. Sundstrom (Ed), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp.
3–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tesluk, P., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks to effective-
ness: Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of
work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 200 –217.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of em-
powerment an interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy
of Management Review, 15, 666 – 681.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180.
Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effective-
ness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science,
12, 559 –577.
Wall, T. D. Cordery, J. L., & Clegg, C. W. (2002). Empowerment,
performance and occupational uncertainty: A theoretical integration.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 146 –169.
Weingart, L. R. (1997). How did they do that? The ways and means of
studying group process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 189 –
239.
Wellins, R., Byham, W., & Wilson, J. (1991). Empowered teams. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Received December 24, 2003
Revision received October 13, 2004
Accepted January 24, 2005 䡲