The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction

Academy of Management Journal

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 175-192

  Kirkman, Bradley L ^a   Rosen, Benson ^b,e   Tesluk, Paul E ^c,f   Gibson, Cristina B ^d  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042633111     PISSN: 00014273     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/20159571     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3: 321-341.
3. Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. 1995. Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups, In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace: 187-215. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2002, A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27:14-49.
5. Blackburn, R. S., Furst, S. A., & Rosen, B. 2003. Building a winning virtual team. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating the conditions for virtual team effectiveness: 95-120. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: 349-381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7. Burpitt, W. J., & Bigoness, W. J. 1997. Leadership and innovation among teams: The impact of empowerment. Small Group Research, 28: 414-423.
8. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46: 823-850.
9. Cascio, W. F. 2000. Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3): 81-90.
10. Champy, J., & Nohria, N. 1997. Fast forward: The best ideas on managing business change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
11. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different level of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234-246.
12. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. 1997, What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239-290.
13. Cohen, S. G., & Gibson, C. B. 2003. In the beginning: Introduction and framework. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness: 1-13. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1988, The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13: 471-482.
15. Coutu, D. L. 1998. Trust in virtual teams. Harvard Business Review, 76(3): 20-21.
16. Grant, J. M. 2000, Proactive behavior in organizations, Journal of Management, 26: 435-462.
17. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1980. The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 13: 39-80. New York: Academic Press.
18. Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. 2001, Mastering virtual teams (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383.
20. Edmondson, A. 2002. The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective, Organization Science, 13: 128-146.
21. Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. 2001. Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 685-716.
22. Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. 1995. Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of Management Executive, 9(3): 21-31.
23. Furst, S. A., Blackburn, R. S., & Rosen, B. 1999. Virtual team effectiveness: A proposed research agenda. Information Systems Journal, 9: 249-269.
24. Geber, B. 1995. Virtual teams. Training, 32(4): 36-40.
25. Gibson, C. B. 2001. From accumulation to accommodation: The chemistry of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 121-134.
26. Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. 2003. The last word: Conclusions and implications. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness: 403-421. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27. Gibson, C. B., & Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. 2000. Understanding group-efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group & Organization Management, 25: 6-97.
28. Gluesing, J. C., Alcordo, T. C., Baba, M. L., Britt, D., Wagner, K. H., McKether, W., Monplaisir, L., Ratner, H. H., & Rioppelle, K. 2003. The development of global virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness: 353-380. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29. Gorn, G. J., & Kanungo, R. N. 1980, Job involvement and motivation: Are intrinsically motivated managers more job involved? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26: 265-277.
30. Griffith, T. L., & Neale, M. A. 2001, Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in organizational behavior, vol. 23: 379-421. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
31. Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. 2003. Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 27: 265-287.
32. Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, R. A. 1996. Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. In L. W. Porter (Ed.), Annual review of psychology, vol. 47: 307-338. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
33. Guzzo, R. A., Campbell, R. J., Moses, J. L., Ritchie, R. R., Schneider, B., Shaff, K., Wheeler, J., Gufstason, P. W. 1991. What makes high-performing teams effective? Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
34. Hackman, J. R. 1987, The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315-342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
35. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
36. Haywood, M. 1998. Managing virtual teams: Practical techniques for high-technology managers. Boston: Artech House.
37. 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.
38. James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 219-229.
39. 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.
40. wg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-309.
41. Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. 1997. Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50: 877-904.
42. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. 1999. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10: 791-815.
43. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. 1998. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14: 29-64.
44. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. 1996. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1): 75-85.
45. Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. 2001. Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18: 7-40.
46. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. 1978, Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22: 375-403.
47. King, N., & Majchzrak, A. 2003. Technology alignment and adaptation for virtual teams involved in unstructured knowledge work. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating condi tions for virtual team effectiveness: 265-291. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1997. A model of work team empowerment. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, vol. 10: 131-167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
49. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-management: The antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 58-74.
50. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 2000. Powering up teams. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3): 48-66.
51. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. 2002. Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3): 67-79.
52. Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. 2001. Assessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 54: 645-667.
53. Klein, K. J., Conn, A. L., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. 2001. Is everyone in agreement? Exploring the determinants of within-group agreement in survey responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 3-16.
54. Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. 1999. Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group & Organization Management, 24: 71-91.
55. Kristof, A. L., Brown, K. G., Sims, H. P., & Smith, K. A. 1995. The virtual team: A case study and inductive model. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Knowledge work in teams, vol. 2: 229-253. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
56. Langfred, C. W. 2000. Work-group design and autonomy: A field study of the interaction between task inter-dependence and group autonomy. Small Group Research, 31: 54-70.
57. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2000. An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 407-416.
58. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Bradway, L. K. 1997. Task interdependence as a moderator of the relation between group control and performance. Human Relations, 50: 169-181.
59. Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. 1995. Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 3: 645-678.
60. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. 1999. Virtual teams: The new way to work. Strategy & Leadership, 27(1): 14-19.
61. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. 2000. Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
62. Lynn, G. S., Skov, R. B., & Abel, K. D. 1999. Practices that support team learning and their impact on speed to market and new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16: 439-454.
63. 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.
64. Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. 2000. Bridging space over time: Global virtual-team dynamics and effectiveness, Organization Science, 11: 473-492.
65. Maznevski, M. L., & Athanassiou, N. A. 2003. Designing the knowledge-management infrastructure for virtual teams: Building and using social networks and social capital. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness: 196-213. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
66. Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21: 402-433.
67. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. 1995. Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
68. Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. 2001. Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1251-1262.
69. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 1-28.
70. Potter, R. E., & Balthazard, P. A. 2002. Understanding human interaction and performance in the virtual team, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1): 1-23.
71. Raven, A. 2003. Team or community of practice Aligning tasks, structures, and technologies. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness: 292-306. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
72. Redding, J. C. 2000, The radical team handbook: Harnessing the power of team learning for break-through results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
73. Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. 2004. Taking empowerment to the next level: A multilevel model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47: In press.
74. Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. 1987. Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(3): 25-31.
75. Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.
76. Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 483-504.
77. Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. 1997. A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23: 679-704.
78. Tesluk, P. E., Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M. A., & Mathieu, J. E. 1997. Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In M. T. Brannick & E. Salas (Eds.), Assessment and measurement of team performance: Theory, research and applications: 197-224. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
79. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An "interpretive" model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15: 666-681.
80. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. 1998. Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3): 17-29.
81. Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A., III. 1996, Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4): 8-30.
82. Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. 1997. Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28: 975-996.
83. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. 1993, Sculpting the learning organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
84. Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Wilson, J. M. 1991. Empowered teams: Creating self-directed work groups that improve quality, productivity, and participation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
85. Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A., III. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 20: 77-140. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.