Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment

Bradley L. Kirkman; Benson Rosen

The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1. (Feb., 1999), pp. 58-74.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28199902%2942%3A1%3C58%3ABSAACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

The Academy of Management Journal is currently published by Academy of Management.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/aom.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Wed Dec 19 23:29:11 2007
" Acadelr~yof .\.lnnagemrnt Iournal
lYY9.Vol. 4 2 , No. 1, 58-74.

BEYOND SELF-MANAGEMENT:ANTECEDENTS AND

CONSEQUENCES OF TEAM EMPOWERMENT
BRADLEY L. KIRKMAN
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

BENSON ROSEN
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

We examined the antecedents, consequences, and mediational role of team empower-

ment using 111 work teams in four organizations. The results indicated that the actions
of external leaders, the production/service responsibilities given to teams, team-based
human resources policies, and the social structure of teams all worked to enhance
employee team empowerment experiences. More empowered teams were also more
productive and proactive than less empowered teams and had higher levels of cus-
tomer service, job satisfaction, and organizational and team commitment.

The use of work teams continues to grow in the
United States (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995;
Osterman, 1994) and in the foreign affiliates of U.S.
multinationals (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997; Manz &
Sims, 1993). A work team is a group of individuals
who work interdependently to solve problems or
carry out work (Hackman, 1987; Manz & Sims,
1993). As both the use of work teams in industry
and the amount of research on teams has increased,
scholars have paid more attention to employee em-
powerment (Argyris, 1998; Conger & Kanungo,
1988; Ford & Fottler, 1995; Hardy & Leiba-
O'Sullivan, 1998; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Spreitzer,
Kizilos, & Nason, 1997; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990;
Thomas & Tymon, 1994). Empowerment is in-
creased task motivation resulting from an individ-
ual's positive orientation to his or her work role
(Spreitzer, 1995).Interestingly, there has been little
scholarly attention to the interaction of empower-
ment and work team membership-that is, to em-
powerment at the team level of analysis (Hyatt and
Ruddy [I9971 is an exception). Empowerment re-
searchers have devoted their attention primarily to
individual-level models, and more scholarly re-
search is needed on the empowerment of teams.
Research on empowered teams has lagged behind
that on self-managing teams, or teams whose mem-
bers manage themselves, assign jobs, plan and
We thank Susan Cohen, Cristina Gibson, Richard
Guzzo, Charles Manz, Gretchen Spreitzer, and Paul
Tesluk for their helpful comments on drafts of this arti-
cle. We would also like to acknowledge the Cato Center
for Applied Business Research at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill for the grant that made this study
possible.
schedule work, make production- or service-related
decisions, and take action on problems (Wellins et al.,
1990). Self-managing teams have been associated
with high productivity (Cohen & Ledford, 1994;
Goodman, Devadas, & Griffith-Hughson, 1988; Trist,
Susman, & Brown, 1977; Wellins et al., 1990), quality
(Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Wellins et al., 1990), cus-
tomer service (Wellins et al., 1990), safety (Cohen &
Ledford, 1994; Goodman et al., 1988; Trist et al.,
1977), job satisfaction (Cordery, Mueller, & Smith,
1991;Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986),and organ-
izational commitment (Cordery et al., 1991). Some
researchers use the terms empowered teams and self-
managing teams synonymously (Fisher, 1993; Ford &
Fottler, 1995; Manz & Sims, 1993), but others differ-
entiate the concepts (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman,
1995). Regardless of the semantic confiision, there
has been very little empirical work on teams strictly
defined as empowered teams.
Recently, we developed a theoretical model of
empowered teams that distinguishes the concept
from self-managing teams (Kirkman & Rosen,
1997). Our team-level model contains four dimen-
sions that parallel the dimensions of empowerment
that have been specified at the individual level of
analysis (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), along with
empowerment's antecedents and consequences.
The purpose of the research reported here was to
test hypotheses generated from our team empower-
ment model. In this article, we first review the four
team empowerment dimensions and differentiate
the concept from the construct of self-managing
teams. Second, we review the antecedents and con-
sequences of team empowerment. Third, we report
a factor analysis of the team empowerment con-
struct and separate analyses of its antecedents and
1999 Kirkm an and Kosen
consequences. Fourth, we report tests of the direct
relationships between team empowerment and its
antecedents and consequences. Fifth, we examine
team empowerment as a mediator between the an-
tecedents and consequences. Finally, we discuss
theoretical implications and future research, man-
agerial implications, and limitations of our study.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Team Empowerment Defined
In our earlier work, we defined team empower-
ment as having four dimensions: potency, mean-
ingfulness, autonomy, and impact (Kirkman &
Rosen, 1997).
Potency. Potency, which parallels the individual-
level empowerment construct of competence, or
self-efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990), is the collective belief of a team
that it can be effective (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, &
Shea, 1993; Shea & Guzzo, 1987a). Potency is dif-
ferent from self-efficacy in at least three ways: (1)
self-efficacy refers to individual performance and
potency refers to team performance, (2) self-effi-
cacy experiences are private but potency experi-
ences develop collectively, and (3) self-efficacy re-
lates to specific task performance but potency
refers to generalized effectiveness (Guzzo et al.,
1993).
Meaningfulness. Meaningfulness, correspond-
ing to meaningfulness at the individual level of
analysis (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), refers to a
team's experiencing its tasks as important, valu-
able, and worthwhile (Hackman, 1987; Hackman
& Oldham, 1980). Team members collectively de-
velop and share the meaningfulness of their
tasks. Thus, team members have direct effects on
the experiences of meaningfulness of other mem-
bers.
Autonomy. Autonomy parallels the individual-
level empowerment construct of choice (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990) and is the degree to which team
members experience substantial freedom, indepen-
dence, and discretion in their work (Hackman,
1987; Susman, 1976).Important decisions are made
and executed by teams. Thus, high levels of team
autonomy may actually decrease individual auton-
omy as important decision making is shared rather
than carried out alone and responsibility is dif-
fused rather than granted to a single individual
(Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1998).
Impact. Team members experience impact,
which is similar to impact at the individual level of
analysis (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), when a team
produces work that is significant and important for
59
an organization (Hackman, 1987). Team members
seek out, share, and collectively understand feed-
back from other organization members. Team mem-
ber interaction enables the gathering of more infor-
mation on team impact from customers than
individuals alone could gather (Ancona, 1990).
Both self-managing teams and empowered teams
are autonomous, but the members of the latter also
share a sense of doing meaningful work that ad-
vances organizational objectives; thus, team em-
powerment is a much broader construct. Self-man-
agement is most analogous to only one of our
empowerment dimensions-autonomy-and some
scholars have even used "autonomous work teams"
as a synonym for self-managing teams (e.g.,Cordery
et a]., 1991; Pearson, 1992; Wall et a]., 1986). In
addition, measures of the two constructs are very
similar. Self-management scales have included
items that assess the extent to which team members
believe that they have high levels of decision-mak-
ing latitude and responsibility (e.g.,Campion, Med-
sker, & Higgs, 1993; Campion, Papper, & Medsker,
1996; Kirkman, Shapiro, Novelli, & Brett, 1996).
Items measuring autonomy typically specify the
degree to which individuals have freedom to make
important decisions about how and what they do
(Cordery et al., 1991; Gulowsen, 1972; Susman,
1976).
The multidimensionality of team empower-
ment. We have argued that team empowerment
consists of four related (but independent) dimen-
sions (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997).The dimensions are
related because they are likely to be mutually rein-
forcing (Spreitzer, 1995). For example, if a team's
members experience impact (that is, talk to custom-
ers about how the team's work affects them), they
may find their work more meaningful (Ancona,
1990; Hackman, 1987). Research on psychological
empowerment at the individual level has shown
that the four dimensions, although related, are still
distinct components of empowerment (Spreitzer,
1995; Tymon, 1988). Thus,
Hypothesis 1 . T h e four dimensions of team
empowerment-potency, meaningfulness, au-
tonomy, and impact-are distinct but related.
Antecedents of Team Empowerment
From an extensive review of the work team, em-
powerment, and group motivation literatures, we
theoretically identified job and organizational char-
acteristics that may act as antecedents to team em-
powerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997). Our search
yielded antecedents in four thematic areas: external
leader behavior, productionlservice responsibili-
60 Academy of Management Jor~rnal
ties, team-based human resources policies, and so-
cial structure. We believed that most of the job and
organizational characteristics identified would
likely affect all four dimensions of team empower-
ment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997).
External team leader behavior. External team
leaders have a supervisory role but are not mem-
bers of the teams they lead (Manz & Sims, 1987).
When team leaders delegate responsibility, ask for
and use employee input, and enhance team mem-
bers' senses of personal control, the team members
are more likely to experience meaning, impact
(Hackman, 1987), and autonomy in their work be-
cause they are taking on more responsibility (Sus-
man, 1976; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).When team
leaders actually use member ideas, members
should become more confident in their abilities, or
experience more potency (Guzzo et al., 1993).
External team leaders who allow teams to set
their own performance and output goals create
more autonomy experiences (Manz & Sims, 1987)
and increase team potency as members decide
which goals should be adjusted and how much
effort is needed in relation to performance
(Guzzo et al., 1993). Members will likely find
these goals more meaningful because they partic-
ipate in their creation (Hackman, 1987; Hackman
& Oldham, 1980). When leaders have high expec-
tations, team members are more likely to com-
plete challenging assignments, further strength-
ening potency experiences (Burpitt & Bigoness,
1997; Manz & Sims, 1987). Guzzo and colleagues
(1993) argued that transformational leaders-
those who energize, inspire, and communicate
high performance expectations-directly influ-
ence potency. For many team leaders, however,
empowering their teams may translate directly
into losing power (Hardy & Leiba-O'Sullivan,
1998). Thus, if team leaders do not trust the ca-
pabilities of team members, they will be less
likely to empower them (Burke, 1986; Culbert &
McDonough, 1986). Consequently,
Hypothesis 2. The more that an external team
leader exhibits encouraging leader behaviors
by, for instance, delegating responsibility to a
team, soliciting and using team input when
making decisions, enhancing team members'
senses of personal control, encouraging team
goal setting, self-evaluation, and high team ex-
pectations, and trusting the tearn, the more the
team's members will experience team empow-
erment.
Productionlservice responsibilities. When
teams set production schedules and standards,
monitor customer feedback, develop and train for
February
quality improvement practices, and assume own-
ership for the completion of finite units of work,
they have high productionlservice responsibili-
ties (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997). In practice, team
member participation in the day-to-day regula-
tion of a team's work varies greatly (Cohen &
Bailey, 1997). More participation in goal setting
leads to greater intrinsic motivation (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980) and a greater sense of empower-
ment (Gulowsen, 1972), but effects on perfor-
mance have been mixed (Locke, Shaw, Saari, &
Latham, 1981). Perhaps empowerment mediates
the relationship between participative goal set-
ting and team performance (cf. Campion et al.,
1993; Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996).At the
individual level, participative goal setting leads
to higher task comprehension (Latham & Saari,
1979). A more complete understanding of tasks
can, in turn, enhance meaningfulness (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990). Participative goal setting also
increases team member autonomy by transferring
the goal-setting responsibility from management
to employees (Susman, 1976).
Similarly, increased decision making in pro-
duction scheduling and job assignments makes
team members a meaningful part of the produc-
tion process (Hackman, 1987; Manz & Sims,
1993) and creates more autonomy (Susman,
1976). Team members who make job assignments
have a demonstrable impact on the work flow of
other members (Hackman, 1987). Further discre-
tion exists for teams created within a total quality
management (TQM) environment (Lawler et al.,
1995). Teams responsible for quality frequently
collect data to measure discrepancies (Ishikawa,
1985), which can allow teams to make adjust-
ments in their work and lead to more potency
experiences (Guzzo et al., 1993). More control
over product or service quality also creates more
autonomy (Hackman, 1987; Susman, 1976). One
of the basic tenets of TQM is that employees who
have increased responsibility for quality will find
their work more personally meaningful (Ish-
ikawa, 1985). Team members constantly update
the skills and knowledge necessary to achieve
high levels of productionlservice quality (Lawler
et al., 1995), and their doing so should affect all
four dimensions of empowerment (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990).
Related to quality and learning is a team's level of
customer contact (Ancona, 1990). Increased cus-
tomer contact and feedback should make team
members feel more potent (Guzzo et al., 1993),
demonstrate that a team's work makes a difference
1999 Kirkman a n d Rosen
for customers (impact; Cummings, 1978),' make the
production or delivery of a service more personally
meaningful to team members (Manz & Sims, 1993),
and allow team members to experience more free-
dom (autonomy) in handling customer issues (Sus-
man, 1976).Team members who provide customers
with a whole product or service use a variety of
skills that are likely to enhance meaningfulness
(Hackman, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1980), con-
fidence in their team's ability to perform (potency;
Guzzo et al., 1993), and knowledge of how their
efforts affect the overall organization (impact; Grif-
fin, 1991). Consequently,
Hypothesis 3. The higher the level of a team's
production/service responsibility-the more,
for instance, that team members set their own
production or service goals, m a k e important
decisions such as scheduling and production/
service assignments, monitor and train for
quality, handle cr~stomer issues and corn-
plaints, and work with a whole, contained
product or service-the more the team mein-
bers will experience team empowerment.
Team-based human resources policies. Human
resources policies for teams, including team-based
rewards, receiving or delivering cross-training, and
making staffing decisions, should support and en-
hance team empowerment. For example, Shea and
Guzzo (1987b) found that when highly interdepen-
dent teams received team pay, they were more
likely to experience potency. Team incentives pro-
vide motivation that may enhance the meaningful-
ness of a team's work (DeMatteo, Eby, & Sund-
strom, 1998; Gibson & Kirkman, 1999; Mohrman et
al., 1995). Some team members receive incentives
to cross-train for team jobs or the jobs of other
teams (Manz & Sims, 1993; Wellins et al., 1990).
Cross-training results in higher team flexibility and
breadth of experience (meaningfulness; Hackman,
1987),confidence in multiple job-related skills (po-
tency; Guzzo et al., 1993), and a higher chance that
team members will have a significant impact on
their organization (Manz & Sims, 1993).
In addition to cross-training, team members
might also train other team members or assist in
their selection, performance evaluation, discipline,
and dismissal (Gibson & Kirkman, 1999). By dem-
onstrating relevant skills and behaviors in the train-
ing of new team members, members are more likely
to feel confident that their team can perform tasks
' Throughout the rest of this section, a dimension
identified in parentheses after a statement should be
understood to be exemplified by the statement.
61
(potency; Guzzo et al., 1993), find intrinsic interest
in their work (meaningfulness),have a greater im-
pact because other team members will be directly
affected by the quality of their training (Hackman,
1987), and feel more autonomy in carrying out a
wider variety of jobs (Susman, 1976). When assess-
ing fellow members with peer evaluations (Saave-
dra & Kwun, 1993), team members will experience
more autonomy in the evaluation process (Susman,
1976), have a greater impact on fellow members'
development and rewards, use the wide variety of
skills that are required in a performance appraisal
process (meaningfulness; Hackman, 1987), and
more accurately perceive how capable their team is
by rating its performance (potency; Guzzo et al.,
1993). Consequently,
Hypothesis 4 . The more that organizations i m -
plement team-based h u m a n resources policies,
whereby, for instance, team members are paid
on the basis of team membership, at least i n
part are cross-trained within and across teams,
participate i n the selection, training, disci-
pline, and dismissal of fellow team members,
and formally evalr~atethe performance of fel-
l o w members, the more the team members will
experience team empowerment.
Social structure. Spreitzer (1996) defined socio-
political support as the endorsement, approval, and
legitimacy obtained from various constituencies in
organizational political networks. Belonging to a
support network increases an individual's interde-
pendence with important organizational constitu-
ents and, in turn, increases that individual's sense
of personal power (Crozier, 1964). Increased per-
sonal power will likely result in more competence
and impact at the individual level (Thomas & Velt-
house, 1990). Manz (1990) argued that at the team
level of analysis, participation broadens team mem-
bers' activities in organizational networks and thus,
their sense of potency.
With increased legitimacy and participation in
networks comes a higher degree of access to strate-
gic organizational information, which in turn can
help team members determine their particular im-
pact on overall organizational performance (Spre-
itzer, 1996), enable team members to experience
higher levels of potency (Guzzo et al., 1993), and
enhance the meaningfulness of team tasks (Hack-
man, 1987). Similarly, access to important resourc-
es-from other teams or departments or even from
outside an organization-will likely enhance the
experience of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996). Be-
yond access, some teams provide resources to other
teams, departments, or external customers. Team
members in charge of providing important informa-
62 Academy qf Management Jor~rnal
tion or resources will likely utilize their full capa-
bilities (potency; Guzzo et al., 1993), have a better
sense of how their actions affect other teams or
customers (impact; Manz & Sims, 1993), heighten
their experience of autonomy (Susman, 1976), and
create more intrinsic meaning in their work (Hack-
man, 1987).
Team members who develop their own rules and
procedures experience a greater sense of participa-
tion in how their teams function on a day-to-day
basis than do team members who are not able to
decide on rules and procedures (Manz & Sims,
1993). Such teams will likely experience a high
level of autonomy, because they have the authority
to design and enforce their own particular manner
of operation (Susman, 1976), a high level of intrin-
sic caring about the work (meaningfulness; Hack-
man, 1987), and a high level of impact, because of
the effect of the rules and procedures on fellow
members (Manz & Sims, 1993). Consequently,
Hypothesis 5. The more that a team's members
are ernbedded i n a well-developed social struc-
ture-for instance, have sociopolitical support,
have access to strategic information and work
unit resources, have a high degree of interteam
coordination and communication, and m a k e
their own rules and policies, the more they will
experience team empowerment.
Consequences of Team Empowerment
Frequently cited criteria of work team effective-
ness include productivity (Banker, Field, Schroe-
der, & Sinha, 1996; Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Glad-
stein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Pearce & Ravlin, 1987;
Shea & Guzzo, 1987a; Trist et al., 1977; Wall et al.,
1986), quality (Banker et al., 1996; Cohen, Ledford,
& Spreitzer, 1996; Hackman, 1987; Shea & Guzzo,
1987a), low costs (Cohen et al., 1996; Trist et al.,
1977), safety (Cohen et al., 1996; Goodman et al.,
1988; Pearce & Ravlin, 1987; Trist et al., 1977), job
satisfaction (Cordery et al., 1991; Wall et al., 1991),
and organizational commitment (Cordery et al.,
1991). We included productivity, proactivity, and
customer service as performance outcomes and job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and team
commitment as attitudinal outcomes. We made the
distinction between performance and attitudinal
outcomes to be consistent with previous research
(Campion et al., 1993; Campion, Papper, & Med-
sker, 1996; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987).
Team productivity. Empowerment has been as-
sociated with productivity at both the team (Hyatt
& Ruddy, 1997; Tesluk, Brass, & Mathieu, 1996)
and individual levels of analysis (Spreitzer, 1995;
February
Spreitzer et al., 1997; Thomas & Tymon, 1994; Ty-
mon, 1988).At the individual level, managers have
higher levels of performance when they feel a sense
of control (autonomy) on the job (Wood & Bandura,
1989). Employees who have more complete knowl-
edge of their jobs (impact) often make better job-
related decisions (Miller & Monge, 1986). Gorn and
Kanungo (1980) found that employees were more
productive when they actively participated in de-
cision making and found their jobs meaningful.
Conger and Kanungo (1988) conceptualized em-
powerment at the individual level as self-efficacy,
which has been linked to productivity (Frayne &
Latham, 1991; Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1991). At
the team level of analysis, Guzzo and colleagues
(1991) found that more potent teams were also
more productive than those with less potency.
Thus,
Hypothesis 6 . The more that a team's members
experience team empowerment, the in ore pro-
ductive the team will be.
Proactivity. Working at the individual level of
analysis, Bateman and Crant (1993) defined proac-
tive behavior as individuals' actions effecting en-
vironmental change through their scanning for
opportunities, showing initiative, taking action
on and solving problems, and persevering until
changes are made. Spreitzer (1995) argued that em-
powerment leads to a proactive orientation toward
jobs, management, and organizations. High levels
of self-efficacy lead to more initiating behaviors
and persistence in the face of obstacles (Bandura,
1997). Deci and Ryan (1985) found that the more an
individual perceived that he or she had autonomy,
the more initiative that person took in work-related
situations. At the team level of analysis, teams are
proactive when they seek continuous improve-
ment, revise work processes, and seek innovative
solutions to work problems (Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997).
Empowered teams have been found to frequently
take action on problems and improve the quality of
their work by initiating changes in the way work is
carried out (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991).
Thus,
Hypothesis 7 . The more that a team's members
experience team empowerment, the more pro-
active their team will be.
Customer service. Company-reported evidence
demonstrates consistent links between the use of
work teams and high levels of quality and customer
service (Lawler et al., 1995; Manz & Sims, 1993;
Wellins et al., 1990). Empowered teams take re-
sponsibility for handling customer complaints di-
rectly and often diagnose their own quality prob-
1999 Kirkman and Rosen
lems and issues (Wellins et al., 1991). Guzzo and
his associates (Guzzo et al., 1991; Shea & Guzzo,
1987b) found that more potent teams also provided
higher levels of internal and external customer ser-
vice. Thus,
Hypothesis 8. The more that a team's members
experience team empowerment, the higher will
be the team's level of customer service.
Teamjob satisfaction. Tymon and his associates
(Thomas & Tymon, 1994; Tymon, 1988) and Spreit-
zer and her colleagues (1997) found associations
between empowerment and job satisfaction at the
individual level of analysis. In addition, employees
working in teams have reported higher levels of job
satisfaction than employees working in traditional
settings in the same company (Cordery et al., 1991;
Wall et al., 1986). Gorn and Kanungo (1980) found
that the more meaningful an employee's job was,
the more satisfied the employee was with his or her
job. Typically, employees find more meaning in
their jobs when the scope of their activities is large
(Griffin, 1991), which is often the case on empow-
ered work teams (Wellins et al., 1991). Thus,
Hypothesis 9. The more that a team's members
experience team empowerment, the higher will
be the team's level of job satisfaction.
Team organizational commitment. Steers
(1977) found that work-related experiences and
perceptions, rather than personal, job, or organiza-
tional factors, were the most powerful predictors of
organizational commitment. Thus, an employee's
experience of empowerment may account for more
variance in his or her commitment level than more
objective job or organizational characteristics.
FIGURE 1
A Model of Work Team Empowermenta
STAGE 1 STAGE 2
Organizational and
Job Characteristics Team Empowerment
External team leader
Potency
behavior
Meaningfulness
Production/service
Autonomy
responsibilities
Team-based human Impact
resources policies
Social structure
" Source: Kirkman and Rosen (1997)
63
Steers also found that a positive attitude among
one's peers was one of the more important experi-
ences affecting commitment. Empowered teams of-
ten generate these positive peer experiences (Wel-
lins et al., 1991). Finally, Steer's research showed
that if employees perceive that their organization
consistently makes and keeps its commitments to
employees, they are more likely to be committed.
The high level of support and trust inherent in an
empowered team system will likely contribute to
higher commitment levels among team members
(Manz & Sims, 1993; Wellins et al., 1991). At the
team level of analysis, Cordery and colleagues
(1991) found that organizational commitment was
higher for employees in autonomous teams than for
those traditionally organized in the same company.
Hackman (1987) suggested that commitment ef-
fects may be stronger for an employee's work team
than for his or her organization. For example,
Wall and colleagues (1986) found no effect of au-
tonomous team membership on employee organi-
zational commitment, a fact attributed to an
overwhelming team commitment effect. To be con-
sistent with our theoretical model and these previ-
ous arguments, we included both organizational
and team commitment. Thus,
Hypothesis 10. The more that a team's mem-
bers experience team empowerment, the
higher will be the team's level of organizational
commitment.
Hypothesis 1 1 . The more that a team's mem-
bers experience team empowerment, the
higher will be the team's level of team commit-
ment.
STAGE 3
Work Team
Effectiveness
Performance Outcomes
Productivity
Proactivity
Customer service
Attitudinal Outcomes
Job satisfaction
Organizational
commitment
Team commitment
64 A c a d e m y of Management Journal
Figure 1 summarizes the hypothesized relation-
ships.
Our model is consistent with previous models of
work team effectiveness (e.g., Campion, Stevens, &
Medsker, 1996; Hackman & Morris, 1975; McGrath,
1964) as well as with models of job design framed
at the individual level of analysis, such as Hack-
man and Oldham's (1980) Job Characteristics
Model. Classified as input-process-output models,
these models separate objective job characteristics
from both effectiveness and internal responses to
these characteristics. All these models include a
three-stage process in which organizational leaders
take action in stage one (inputs), those actions af-
fect employee experiences i n stage two (process),
and important outcomes result from positive em-
ployee orientations toward work in stage three (out-
puts). Like our model of team empowerment, these
models imply that employee experiences in stage
two will mediate managerial actions taken in stage
one and outcomes realized in stage three. For ex-
ample, Guzzo and colleagues (1991) found that po-
tency mediated the relationships between both
team composition and team effectiveness and goal
setting and team effectiveness. Consequently,
Hypothesis 12. Team empowerment ~7illmedi-
ate the relationships between job and organi-
zational characteristics (external leader behav-
iors, production/service responsibilities, team-
based human resources policies, and social
structure) and team effectiveness outcomes
(productivity,proactivity, customer service, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
team commitment].
METHODS
Sample
We used a field study to test the multidimen-
sionality of team empowerment, the relation-
ships between team empowerment and its ante-
cedents and outcomes, and the mediational role
of team empowerment. We conducted the study
i n four organizations (two Fortune 50 organiza-
tions and two smaller companies) that had for-
mally implemented work teams. The companies,
all of which were located i n the southeastern and
southwestern United States, included two textile
manufacturers, a high-technology manufacturer,
and a n insurance company. Response rates, age
ranges, race, sex, education levels, organizational
tenure, team size, and team tenure are shown in
Table 1 for team members and team leaders over-
all a n d for each organization separately. Table 1
February
also shows significant differences between orga-
nizations.
Level-of-Analysis Issues
Researchers can measure group-level phenom-
ena using individual member data i n at least
three ways (Tesluk, Zaccaro, Marks, & Mathieu,
1997). First, respondents can rate themselves on
their individual attributes, and researchers can
then aggregate these data to the group level. Sec-
ond, individuals can rate their groups or teams on
particular attributes (rather than rate their o w n
attributes as individuals), a n d these ratings can
be averaged to form a group score (see Campion et
al. [1993], Campion, Papper, and Medsker [1996],
a n d Hyatt and Ruddy [I9971 for examples).
Third, groups can provide consensus survey rat-
ings. Following the recommendations of previous
researchers (Campion et al., 1993; Guzzo et al.,
1993) we measured team empowerment by facil-
itating group consensus on 26 team empower-
ment items for each team. Thus, our team em-
powerment scores captured a group-level
phenomenon without aggregation.
We measured the antecedents of team empower-
ment (job and organizational characteristics) by sur-
veying external team leaders in order to avoid the
same-source bias that would have been present if we
had used team member data (Podsakoff & Organ,
1986). We also obtained measures of d ~ performance
e
outcomes (productivity, proactivity, and customer
service) fiom external team leaders. Purely objective
performance data were not used because most of the
teams in the study were assessed by their organiza-
tions with their own measurement systems, so com-
parability within and across organizations was lim-
ited (Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Spreitzer et al., 1997).
However, in a cover letter accompanying the survey
we instructed the team leaders to review performance
data to help ensure that objective data were consid-
ered in their ratings.
We obtained data on the attitudinal outcomes
(job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and team commitment) by aggregating team mem-
ber data. Researchers typically use self-report
measures of satisfaction and commitment for di-
rect measures of these internal states (Markoczy,
1997). We used different sources and measure-
ment methods to minimize common method vari-
ance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Consequently,
our study design followed a two-source (external
team leaders and team members), three-method
(external team leader ratings, team member con-
sensus interviews, and team member aggregated
ratings) strategy.
 Kirkrnan and Rosen

TABLE 1
Demographic Informationa
Team Member Data Team Leader Data

Organization Organization

Variable Overall A B C D Overall A B C D

Response rate
Surveys
Interviews"
Age range
Under 20
2 0-3 5
36-50
Over 50
Chi-square 31.31 (df = 1 2 , p < ,002) 22.35 ( d f = 6, p < ,001)
Race
Caucasian
African American
Asian American
Hispanic American
Other
Chi-square 210.01 (df = 12, p < ,001) 19.09 ( d f = 6, p < ,004)
Sex
Female 17.86 70.00 10.53

Chi-square 114.54 (df = 3, p < ,001) 33.70 (df = 3, p < ,001)

Education
Some high school
High school diploma
Four-year-college degree
Master's
Ph.D.
Chi-square 67.44 (df = 9, p < ,001) 4.23 (df = 6 , p < ,645)
Team characteristics
Average organizational tenure in yearsh
Average team tenure in yearsh
Average team sizeb."
Average number of teams led by one
leaderh

" Percentage calculated from returned surveys.

" Different subscripts indicate significant differences.
" Number of members.
* F,, ,,,= 50.41, p < ,001.
F,, ,,,= 60.25, p < ,001.
F,, ,,,= 13.63, p < ,001.
F,, ,, = 19.96, p < ,001.
h F ,,,, = 9.96, p < . 0 0 1 .
' F,, ,, = 5.46, p < .001.
' F,, = 8.24, p < . O O l .

We tested for the efficacy of the aggregation of
individual-level data to the team level in two ways:
(1)we ran an analysis of variance to ensure that the
variance between teams was greater than the vari-
ance within teams (this was positively confirmed
for each variable) and (2) we used the interrater
agreement procedure to assess the reliability of
each aggregated variable for each team (James, De-
maree, &Wolf,1984,1993).We report the interrater
agreement results for the three aggregated variables
in Table 2 , which appears in our Results section, in
a column headed "I-,,."
 A c a d e m y of Management Journal

TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlationsa.b. "
Variable N Mean s.d. r,, r,,,, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1.Potency 98 5.92 0.85 (.82)

2. Meaningfulness 98 5.67 1.28 .69 (.92)
3. Autonomy 98 3.91 1.79 .48 .60 (.94)
4, Impact 98 5.74 1.24 .79 .80 .53 (.93)
5. Team empowerment 98 5.31 1.10 .81 .89 .82 .88 (.96)
6. External leader behavior 101 5.59 0.83 0.27 .23 .32 .42 .33 .40 (.91)
7. Production/service 101 4.68 1.10 0.42 .05 .I6 .41 .10 .25 .58 (.86)
responsibilities
8. Team-based human 101 3.89 0.94 0.39 .09 .16 .22 .12 .22 .48 .53 (.74)
resources policies
9. Social structure 101 4.73 1.12 0.46 .14 .29 .28 .18 .27 .55 .59 .47 (.go)
10. Team-level productivity 101 5.36 1.02 0.47 .6O .55 .45 .63 .64 .59 .30 .21 .33 (.91)
11.Team-level proactivity 101 4.96 0.96 0.48 .39 .48 .38 .43 .49 .68 .40 .41 .56 .70 (.go)
12. Team-level customer service 101 5.60 0.88 0.38 .40 .27 .28 .40 .38 .51 .36 .25 .44 .73 .6l (.91)
13. Team-level job satisfaction 111 4.05 0.86 0.87 .29 .36 .54 .36 .48 .32 .15 .23 .30 .29 .23 .15 (.85)
14. Team-level organizational 111 4.56 0.86 0.85 .44 .44 .55 .44 .56 .45 .24 .27 .37 .43 .40 .34 .77 (37)
commitment
15. Team-level team 111 4.32 1.07 0.83 .48 .44 .52 .47 .57 .33 .16 .17 .32 .35 .33 .28 .65 .70 (.95)
commitment

" N indicates the number of teams and varies with the data source and method used; for team member consensus ratings, N = 98; for
data from external team leaders, N = 101; for team-member-aggregated data, N = 111.
For correlations greater than .20, p < .05; for r > .26, p < .01; for r > .33, p < .001.
" The statistic r,,, represents the reliability within groups averaged across all teams (James et al., 1984, 1996); r,,,,,,, is the correlation
between team leader and team member data. Reliabilities are in parentheses.

Measures a group, was cross-trained to do different jobs, and

All of the items described below were measured
on a seven-point Likert-type scale, with 1 for
"strongly disagree" and 7 for "strongly agree."
Antecedents of team empowerment. The items
making up the antecedents were based on our lit-
erature review (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997). The exter-
nal leader behavior group construct was measured
with a 14-item scale. Examples of the items include
the extent to which a team leader agreed or dis-
agreed that he or she gave a team many responsi-
bilities, asked the team for advice when making
decisions, controlled much of the activity of the
team (reverse-coded), allowed the team to set its
own goals, stayed out of the way when the team
worked on its performance problems, told the team
to expect a lot from itself, and trusted the team.
The production/service responsibilities group
construct was measured with a 12-item scale. Ex-
amples include the extent to which a team leader
agreed or disagreed that the team he or she led set
its own goals, had the responsibility to decide pro-
ductionlservice scheduling, and had the responsi-
bility for measuring the quality of its products.
Team-based h u m a n resources policies (a group
construct) was measured with a 9-item scale. Ex-
amples include the extent to which a team leader
agreed or disagreed that the team he or she led
decided who could be a member, was rewarded as
formally evaluated the performance of its own
members.
The social structure group construct was mea-
sured with an 11-item scale. Examples include the
extent to which a team leader agreed or disagreed
that the team he or she led had access to other
teams' resources, got support from other groups in
the company when it needed it, had access to im-
portant information, depended on other teams for
resources or information, and had the responsibil-
ity to make its own rules.
Team empowerment. Potencywas assessed with
Guzzo and colleagues' (1993) 8-item team-level
measure. The items assessed the extent to which
team members agreed or disagreed that their team
had confidence in itself, believed it could be ex-
tremely good at producing high-quality work, ex-
pected to be known as a high-performing team, felt
it could solve any problem, believed it could be
very productive, could get a lot done when it
worked hard, believed that no job was too tough,
and expected to have influence.
Team meaningfulness was assessed with Thomas
and Tymon's (1993) 6-item individual-level mea-
sure adapted for the team level. The items assessed
the extent to which team members agreed or dis-
agreed that their team cared about what it did,
believed that its work was valuable, believed that
1999 Kirkrnan and Rosen
its projects were significant, felt that its group pur-
pose was important, found that what it was trying
to do was meaningful, and felt that its group tasks
were worthwhile.
Team autonomy was assessed with Thomas and
Tymon's (1993) 6-item individual-level measure
adapted for the team level. The items assessed the
extent to which team members agreed or disagreed
that their team could select different ways to do its
work, determined how things were done, felt a
sense of freedom in what it did, determined as a
team what things were done, made its own choices
without being told by management, and had a lot of
choice in what it did.
Team impact was assessed with Thomas and
Tymon's (1993) 6-item individual-level measure
adapted to the team level. The items assessed the
extent to which team members agreed or disagreed
that their team made progress on its projects, had a
positive impact on other employees, had a positive
impact on company customers, accomplished its ob-
jectives, performed tasks that mattered to its com-
pany, and made a difference in the organization.
Outcomes of team empowerment. Team-level
productivity was assessed with a 6-item measure
developed specifically for this study and adminis-
tered to external team leaders. The items repre-
sented a synthesis of the key performance indica-
tors of each of the participating organizations.
Examples include the extent to which respondents
agreed or disagreed that their team met or exceeded
its goals and completed its tasks on time.
Team-level proactivity was assessed with a
7-item adaptation of Bateman and Crant's (1993)
measure of individual proactivity administered to
external team leaders. Examples include the extent
to which respondents agreed or disagreed that their
team could fix things it did not like and was always
looking for better ways to do something.
Team-level customer service was assessed with a
5-item scale developed specifically for this study
and administered to external team leaders. The
items represented a synthesis of the key customer
service indicators of each of the participating organ-
izations. Examples include the extent to which re-
spondents agreed or disagreed that their team pro-
duced high-quality products and services and
provided a satisfactory level of customer service
overall.
Team-level job satisfaction was assessed with
Thomas and Tymon's (1994) 4-item measure. The
items assessed the extent to which a team's mem-
bers agreed or disagreed that team members were
satisfied with their pay, the promotion opportuni-
ties possible, the team's relations with other em-
67
ployees and departments, and the team's current
job assignments.
Team-level organizational commitment was as-
sessed using a 3-item measure taken from Shapiro
and Kirkman (1999). The items assessed the extent
to which a team's members agreed or disagreed that
team members were loyal to their organization, ex-
pected to work for the company for a long time, and
trusted management.
Team-level team commitment was assessed with
a 3-item measure adapted from Shapiro and Kirk-
man's (1999) organizational commitment scale.
The items assessed the extent to which a team's
members agreed or disagreed that team members
were loyal to each other, expected to work together
for a long time, and trusted each other.
Procedures
We used four criteria to select the teams that
participated in the study: (1)a minimum team life
span of one year, (2) team distinctiveness (that is,
the teams had names and clear boundaries existed
between teams), (3) varying levels of team effective-
ness (that is, some of the teams at each site had to
be high on productivity and customer service and
others low), and (4) consistent application of the
job and organizational characteristics across sites
(that is, teams could not have been selected to
participate in an empowerment program). A total of
1 1 2 teams met the criteria for participation.
We administered surveys to external team lead-
ers to assess antecedents and performance conse-
quences and to team members to assess attitudinal
consequences. Facilitators, who administered sur-
veys during scheduled breaks, instructed team
members to fill out their surveys on company time,
insert completed surveys into supplied envelopes,
seal them, and place them in a collection box lo-
cated in a secure area. The facilitators stated that if
any employee wished not to participate, he or she
should place the blank survey in the envelope and
then the collection box. Facilitators were instructed
to leave the room once all instructions had been
read and understood. A total of 1,075 surveys re-
turned from 1 1 2 teams represented an 85 percent
response rate. One team had to be dropped from the
study because of an inadequate number of team
member responses, leaving a total of 111 teams in
all analyses involving aggregated data. A total of
101 leader surveys were returned (a 91 percent
response rate).
We used team consensus to assess team empow-
erment. The first author conducted meetings of ap-
proximately 45 minutes each with 98 teams (88
percent of the teams). Some teams could not be
68 Academy of Management Journal
interviewed owing to absenteeism or work-related
duties. The interviews, which were conducted on-
site and on company time in conference rooms,
took place no earlier than 3 weeks and no later than
6 weeks after survey completion; the mean time
between survey and interview was 5.2 weeks. Each
member of the team was given a copy of the 26-item
team empowerment measure. The researcher in-
formed each team's members that they must reach
consensus on where their team stood on each of the
26 items and that one team member should record
the team's answers. Responses were made on a
one-to-seven scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 =
strongly agree). The researcher read each item and
then instructed the team to discuss the item, re-
solve differences of opinion, and reach consensus.
The researcher did not clarify any of the items,
instead instructing team members to form their
own opinions about the meaning of each item. A
total of 868 team members participated (81 percent
of all the team members who completed surveys).
RESULTS
We conducted several sets of analyses on the data,
including (1)three factor analyses, one for the job and
organizational characteristics, one for the team em-
powerment items, and one for the team performance
outcome items,"(2 reliability checks on the factored
scales, (3) interrater agreement checks on the aggre-
gated scales, (4) correlation and multiple regression
analyses, to test hypotheses regarding direct relation-
ships, (5) a hierarchical regression analysis, to test for
the increased explanatory power of team empower-
ment beyond autonomy on the team effectiveness
outcomes, and (6) a hierarchical regression analysis,
to test for the mediating effects of team empowerment
(Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Factor Analysis and Correlation Matrix
There were too many job and organizational
items (46 in all) to analyze using confirmatory fac-
tor analysis (Bentler & Chou, 1987). In addition, the
items were based on a literature review and were
exploratory (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997). Thus, we
used exploratory factor analysis to assess whether
the four antecedents of team empowerment should
be kept separate in subsequent analyses (Nunnally
& Bernstein, 1994). Four factors emerged from a
"varimax" rotation with eigenvalues greater than
We did not factor-analyze the attitudinal outcome
items because all three of the scales had been previously
factor-analyzed in earlier studies.
February
1.0 and explaining a total of 75 percent of the
variance. The four factors corresponded to our orig-
inal theoretical specification (Kirkman & Rosen,
1997). Six items (1from external leader behavior, 3
from productionlservice responsibilities, and 2
from team-based human resources policies) failed
to load on any factor and were dropped from sub-
sequent analyses. Post hoc analyses of regressions
that included these dropped variables demon-
strated highly similar result^.^
The 26-item measure of team empowerment re-
solved into four separate factors (under varimax
rotation) with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and ex-
plaining a total of 91 percent of the variance. The
four factors corresponded to our original theoreti-
cal specification. One potency item ("My team be-
lieves that no job is too tough") did not load on any
factor and was subsequently dropped from the
analysis. The three performance scales "factored"
as expected (varimax rotation) with three factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 explaining a total
of 9 2 percent of the variance.
Table 2 shows the correlations and reliabilities
for the study's variables. Table 2 also shows accept-
able interrater reliabilities for the aggregated vari-
ables averaged across all of the teams (James et al.,
1984, 1993).
Hypothesis Testing
We included organization-level variables in all
regression analyses. The results are shown with
these variables included.
The multidimensionality of team empower-
ment. The results of the team empowerment factor
analysis supported Hypothesis 1,which states that
team empowerment consists of four distinct dimen-
sions. For further support, we examined the corre-
lations between the dimensions, which, contrary to
our expectations, were exceedingly high (for mean-
ingfulness and impact, r = .80; for potency and
impact, r = .79; and for potency and meaningful-
ness, r = .69). Thus, given the inability of an ex-
ploratory factor analysis to provide more solid
evidence for multidimensionality (as might be ob-
tained with confirmatory factor analysis) and the
very high correlations between the dimensions, we
used a composite measure of team empowerment.
Spreitzer (1995) used a similar strategy to measure
empowerment at the individual level of analysis
and also noted that the high correlations between
Tables depicting the results of each of the factor
analyses are not included owing to space limitations but
are available from the first author upon request.
1999 Kirkman and Rosen
the dimensions did not provide sufficient evidence
for discriminant validity. Thus, overall, Hypothesis
1 received only mixed support.
Job and organizational characteristics. To test
the relationship between the job and organizational
characteristics and team empowerment, we entered
all four characteristics simultaneously into a re-
gression equation as predictors. To check for mul-
ticollinearity, we included measures of tolerance
(Darlington, 1990) that did not indicate the pres-
ence of multicollinearity. The results showed that
team empowerment was significantly related to ex-
ternal team leader behaviors (P = .37, p < .01),
production/service responsibilities (P = .26, p <
.05),team-based human resources policies (P = .31,
p < .05), and social structure (P = .35, p < .01).
Thus, Hypotheses 2-5 were supported.
The outcomes of team empowerment. To test for
relationships between team empowerment and ef-
fectiveness outcomes, we examined correlations,
because the relationships consisted of only two
variables each. Team empowerment was signifi-
cantly related to productivity (r = .64, p < .001),
proactivity (r = .49, p < .001), customer service
(r = .38, p < .001), job satisfaction (r = .48, p <
.001), organizational commitment (r = .56, p <
.001), and team commitment ( r = .57, p < .001).
Thus, Hypotheses 6 through 11 were all supported.
As a check on our assertion that team empower-
ment explains more variance in team effectiveness
than autonomy (i.e., self-management) alone, we en-
tered autonomy as a predictor variable in a hierarchi-
cal regression equation in which the six team effec-
tiveness outcomes were criterion variables. In a
second step, we entered the team empowerment com-
posite. We found significant changes in R2 for every
outcome (productivity, AR2 = .22, p < .001; proactiv-
ity, AR2 = .lo, p < ,001; customer satisfaction, AR' =
.07, p < .001; job satisfaction, A R ~= .02, p < .05;
organizational commitment, AR2 = .05, p < .001;
team commitment, AR2 = .07, p < .001). Thus, we
have some support for the assertion that team em-
powerment is a more powerful predictor of team ef-
fectiveness than self-management alone.
Team empowerment as a mediator. We first
created two effectiveness indexes, the first made up
of the three team performance variables (productiv-
ity, proactivity, and customer satisfaction; a = .86)
and the second made up of the team member atti-
tudinal variables (job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and team commitment; a = .go). We
created the indexes to simplify what would have
been a needlessly complicated mediation analysis
involving four predictors, one mediator, and six
outcomes, and we maintained consistency with
previous team effectiveness models that have de-
69
fined team effectiveness in terms of both perfor-
mance and member attitudes (e.g., Campion et al.,
1993; Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Glad-
stein, 1984; Hackman, 1987).
For team performance, we used a hierarchical
regression analysis to control for team empower-
ment in the first step. In the second step, we en-
tered the four job and organizational characteristics
variables to assess their residual variance. Team
empowerment remained significant (P = -36,p <
.001) and, with the exception of external leader
behavior (P = .51, p < .001), none of the other job
and organizational characteristics were significant.
Thus, for three of the four characteristics, team
empowerment fully mediated their relationship to
team performance.
For the attitude index, we again used hierarchical
regression analysis to control for team empowerment
in the first step. In the second step, we entered the
four job and organizational characteristics variables
to assess their residual variance. Team empowerment
remained significant (P = .51, p < .001),but none of
the other job and organizational characteristics were
significant. Thus, team empowerment fully mediated
the relationship of each of the four characteristics to
team member attitudes.
DISCUSSION
Theoretical Implications and Future Research
Our major finding is that highly empowered
teams are more effective than less empowered
teams. Although some previous research has
shown strong productivity effects for self-managing
teams, other researchers have reported more mod-
est effects (Goodman et al., 1988) or found none at
all (Wall et al., 1986). Perhaps these studies in-
cluded both highly empowered and less empow-
ered teams. Our study demonstrated that work
teams vary on empowerment (and, consequently,
productivity and other outcomes). Such variation
could influence the results of a study that simply
assessed aggregate productivity effects (e.g.,Wall et
al., 1986). Similarly, at the individual level, re-
searchers have found mixed effects when assessing
participative management's influence on perfor-
mance (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, &
Jennings, 1988; Wagner, 1994). Perhaps the lack of
significant findings has been due in part to the ab-
sence of empowerment. For example, individuals
might have experienced their tasks as trivial rather
than meaningful, believed that they did not have the
competency to participate effectively, or failed to see
their suggestions followed up or supported by man-
agement (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
70 A c a d e m y of Management Journal
Second, although we found high correlations be-
tween the four empowerment dimensions, the team
empowerment composite explained variance in
team effectiveness that went beyond what auton-
omy explained. This pattern underscores the im-
portance of not treating self-management and em-
powerment as synonymous concepts. In addition,
Table 2 shows that the correlations between auton-
omy and the other dimensions were much lower
than the correlations those dimensions had with
each other. Clearly, autonomy makes up a very
important part of team empowerment. A team with
no autonomy that compensates with high potency,
meaningfulness, and impact is probably not truly
empowered. However, our results suggest that in
order for teams to be highly effective, they must be
autonomous and their members must experience
potency, meaningfulness, and impact (cf. Alper,
Tjosvold, & Law, 1998), even though autonomy
alone did explain some unique variance in team
effectiveness. In fact, self-managing teams have a
much greater productivity impact on complex
tasks, which are likely to generate potency, mean-
ingfulness, and impact experiences, than on rou-
tine takes (Cordery, Wall, & Wright, 1997). Thus,
autonomy is most likely a necessary, but not a
sufficient, condition for team empowerment.
Third, we found that external leader behavior in-
fluenced team empowerment experience~.These
findings support previous theoretical arguments for
these relationships (Culbert & McDonough, 1986;
Cummings, 1978; Denison, 1982) and empirical stud-
ies of supervisory empowerment (Burpitt & Bigoness,
1997) and self-management (Manz & Sims, 1987).
Similarly, we found a relationship between produc-
tionlservice responsibilities and team empowerment
experiences, a finding that supports previous theoret-
ical work in this area (Cummings, 1978; Hackman,
1987; Manz & Sims, 1993).
The link between team-based human resources
policies and team empowerment supports previous
empirical findings (Blackburn & Rosen, 1993;
Frayne & Latham, 1987; Gist et al., 1991) and the-
oretical work on teams (Hackman, 1987; Manz &
Sims, 1993). In addition, the fact that the mean we
report here for team-based human resources poli-
cies is lower than the other antecedents' means (see
Table 2) may indicate that organizations adopt
team pay and peer evaluations at a much slower
rate than other team-related changes or perhaps do
not adopt them at all (cf. Mohrman et al., 1995).
Changing existing pay and evaluation systems is
complex and can be emotional for change recipi-
ents (DeMatteo et al., 1998; Gibson & Kirkman,
1999; Kirkman et al., 1996). Researchers should
continue to examine team-based human resources
February
policies because our findings indicate that they are
integral drivers of team empowerment and, conse-
quently, of team effectiveness.
With regard to social structure, we validated
Spreitzer's (1996) individual-level findings at the
team level of analysis and supported previous empir-
ical (Gladstein, 1984) and theoretical work (Hack-
man, 1987) on structure at the team level of analysis.
Specifically, work units that provided sociopolitical
support and access to important information and re-
sources enhanced team empowerment. In summary,
our findings highlight the importance of the organi-
zational context in creating team empowerment ex-
periences (cf. Wageman, 1997).Organizations should
attend to context at multiple levels of analysis (from
leader behavior to organization-wide policies) to
more fully realize the benefits of team empowerment
(Campbell & Martinko, 1998).
Our fourth implication concerns Spreitzer's (1995)
suggestion that empowerment researchers expand
their research by broadening outcome measures to
include organizational commitment, organizational
effectiveness, and total quality management. Follow-
ing Spreitzer's recommendations proved useful; team
empowerment was positively associated with a broad
range of positive employee and organizational out-
comes such as commitment, proactivity, and cus-
tomer service. Researchers may have understated the
payoffs for empowered work teams.
Perhaps what is needed most now in the team
effectiveness literature is research that examines em-
powerment at the individual and team levels simul-
taneously (see Tesluk et al. [I9961 for an example).
Manz (1993) suggested that granting teams more em-
powerment might, in fact, detract from individual
levels of empowerment, in that an individual may
actually feel less autonomy on a team where decision
making and responsibilities have to be shared among
team members. Such research could help determine
the specific impact of empowerment at multiple lev-
els of analysis and thus identify optimal levels of
empowerment at both the individual and team levels
(cf. Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1998). We urge more research-
ers to use the team consensus technique in these
future studies. Perhaps future research will also help
determine when it is most appropriate to use team
consensus and when it might be suitable to use team-
member-aggregated ratings.
Team empowerment research should also be con-
ducted on various types of teams, including man-
agement teams, project teams, and virtual teams, to
determine if the results of our findings with perma-
nent work teams are generalizable (Cohen & Bailey,
1997). Obviously, empowered teams will not be
right for every task or work situation. The challenge
for work team and empowerment researchers will
1999 Kirkman and Rosen
be to (1) continue moving beyond anecdotal evi-
dence of team success to more rigorous research
designs that effectively test both the causes and
payoffs of work team empowerment and (2) con-
tinue to move beyond self-managing work team
models to broaden the conceptualization of work
team effectiveness.
Managerial Implications
First, we recommend that managers use the team
empowerment scale developed for this research pro-
gram to assess the teams they lead. Our findings sug-
gest that it is imperative that managers identify those
teams with low levels of empowerment and engage in
activities designed to raise their levels of empower-
ment. Managers should take actions in multiple con-
textual arenas and at multiple levels in their organi-
zations to (I)ensure that team leaders receive training
to exhibit appropriate behaviors, such as encouraging
teams to solve their own problems and setting high
team expectations, (2) increase the productionlser-
vice responsibilities of teams, such as the production
of whole products or the delivery of integrated ser-
vices, and allow team members to set their own goals,
(3) alter human resource policies, for example, in-
creasing the amount of cross-training and training
team members to hire and discipline fellow teams,
and (4) modify social structures to increase team
member access to resources and information and es-
tablish more communication and coordination across
teams.
Second, there is evidence that the team consensus
technique meets more of the theoretical requirements
for obtaining team-level data than does the aggrega-
tion method and that the former is a superior pre-
dictor of team-level outcomes (Kirkman, Tesluk, &
Rosen, 1998). Managers may want to consider the
team consensus technique as a viable alternative to
collecting team-level data and as a way to overcome
the limitations of the aggregation technique.
Limitations
To preclude the questions of causality often
begged by cross-sectional studies, in our design we
only included organizations in which the relevant
job and organizational characteristics (the team em-
powerment antecedents) were present at the site or
organizational level-not team-by-team. As a par-
tial statistical check on whether empowerment
practices were uniform within organizations, an
analysis of variance was conducted, with organiza-
tion as the predictor variable and the four job and
organizational characteristics as criterion variables.
The test statistic (F)was significant for all four of
71
the characteristics, which indicated lower variance
within organizations than between organizations.
Thus, the empowerment of the teams in our sample
cannot have been a function of their relative effec-
tiveness.
A cross-sectional design cannot speak to the pos-
sibility that team empowerment experiences are
caused by team effectiveness, rather than vice versa.
In fact, researchers have suggested that effectiveness
and empowerment may be reciprocally related
(Spreitzer, 1995) and self-reinforcing (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990) at the individual level of analysis.
Lindsley, Brass, and Thomas (1995) made the same
argument for effectiveness and potency at the team
level of analysis. Longitudinal studies are needed to
explore these reciprocal effects over time.
Conclusion
Our study adds to the growing body of research that
has isolated the effects of work team implementation
on organizational effectiveness. We have tried to take
a first step with a relatively new construct, team em-
powerment. In view of our findings, we hope that
managers will attempt to create empowerment expe-
riences for their work teams. We also hope that re-
searchers will continue to examine team empower-
ment and use the team consensus technique to assess
important team constructs. More generally, we hope
that researchers will keep identifying and assessing
the conditions necessary to make work teams opti-
mally effective in organizations.
REFERENCES
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. 1998. Interdepen-
dence and controversy in group decision making:
Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organ-
izational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
74: 33-52.
Ancona, D. G. 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team
survival in an organization. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 33: 334-365.
Argyris, C. 1998. Empowerment: The emperor's new
clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76(3): 98-105.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York: Freeman.
Banker, R. D., Field, J. M., Schroeder, R. G., & Sinha, K. K.
1996. Impact of work teams on manufacturing per-
formance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of
Management Journal, 39: 867-890.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-medi-
ator variable distinction in social psychological re-
search: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid-
erations. Journal of Personality and Socieiy
P S Y C ~ O ~51:
O ~1173-1182.
Y,
72 Academy of Management Journal
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. 1993. The proactive com-
ponent of organizational behavior: A measure and
correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14:
103-118.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. 1987. Practical issues in
structural modeling. Sociological Methods b Re-
search, 15: 78-117.
Blackburn, R. B., & Rosen, B. 1993. Total quality and
human resources management: Lessons learned from
Baldridge Award-winning companies. Academy of
Management Executive, 7: 49-60.
Burke, W. 1986. Leadership as empowering others. In S.
Srivastva (Ed.), Executive power: 51-77. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burpitt, W. J., & Bigoness, W. J. 1997. Leadership and
innovation among teams: The impact of empower-
ment. Small Group Research, 28: 414-423.
Campbell, C. R., & Martinko, M. J. 1998. An integrative
attributional perspective of empowerment and
learned helplessness: A multimethod field study.
Journal of Management, 24: 173-200.
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: 823-8550.
Campion, M. A , , Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. 1996.
Relations between work group characteristics and
effectiveness: A replication and extension. Person-
nel Psychology, 49: 429-452.
Campion, M. A., Stevens, M. J., & Medsker, G. J. 1996. An
input-process-output (ZPO) model of work team ef-
fectiveness. Paper presented at the 11th annual con-
ference of the Society for Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, San Diego.
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.
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. 1994. The effectiveness
of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human
Relations, 47: 13-43.
Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Spreitzer, G. M. 1996.
A predictive model of self-managing work team ef-
fectiveness. Human Relations, 49: 643-676.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. 1988. The empowerment pro-
cess: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 13: 471-482.
Cordery, J. L., Mueller, W. S., & Smith, L. M. 1991.
Attitudinal and behavioral effects of autonomous
group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy
of Management Journal, 34: 464-476.
Cordery, J. L., Wall, T. D., & Wright, B. M. 1997. Towards a
more comprehensive and integrated approach to
work design: Production uncertainty and self-man-
aging work team performance. Paper presented at the
February
12th annual conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis.
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-
Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. 1988 Employee partic-
ipation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.
Academy of Management Review, 13: 8-22.
Crozier, M. 1964. The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Culbert, S., & McDonough, J. 1986. The politics of trust
and organization empowerment. Public Administra-
tion Quarterly, 10: 171-188.
Cummings, T. 1978. Self-regulating work groups: A socio-
technical synthesis. Academy of Management Re-
view, 3: 625-634.
Darlington, R. B. 1990. Regression and linear models.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and
self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum.
DeMatteo, J. S., Eby, L. T., & Sundstrom, E. 1998. Team-
based reward systems: Current empirical evidence and
directions for future research. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behav-
ior, vol. 20: 141-183. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Denison, D. R. 1982. Sociotechnical design and self-man-
aging work groups: The impact on control. Journal
of Occupational Behaviour, 3: 297-314.
Fisher, K. 1993. Leading self-directed work teams: A
guide to developing n e w team leadership skills.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. 1995. Empowerment: A
matter of degree. Academy of Management Execu-
tive, 9(3): 21-31.
Frayne, C. A., & Latham, G. P. 1987. The application of
social learning theory to employee self-management
and attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72:
387-392.
Gibson, C. B., & Kirkman, B. L. 1999. Our past, present,
and future in teams: The role of human resources
professionals in managing team performance. In
A. L. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving prac-
tices in human resource management: Responses
to a changing world of work: Forthcoming. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. 1991. The effects
of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and
performance in computer software training. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74: 884-891.
Gladstein, D. 1984. Groups in context: A model of task
group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 29: 499-517.
Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R., & Griffith-Hughson, T. L.
1988. Groups and productivity: Analyzing the effec-
tiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell &
R. J. Campbell (Eds.),Productivity in organizations:
 and Rosen
New perspectives from industrial and organiza-
tional psychology: 295-327. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
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.
Griffin, R. LV. 1991. Effects of work redesign on employee
perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors: A long-term
investigation. Academy of Management Journal,
34: 425-435.
Gulowsen, J. 1972. A measure of work group autonomy.
In L. Davis & J. Taylor (Eds.), Design of jobs: 374-
390. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.
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.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P.
1993. Potency in groups: Articulating a construct.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 87-106.
Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J.
Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behav-
ior: 315-342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. 1975. Group tasks, group
interaction process, and group performance effec-
tiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, vol. 8: 47-100. New York: Academic.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hardy, C., & Leiba-O'Sullivan, S. 1998. The power be-
hind empowerment: Implications for research and
practice. Human Relations, 51: 451-483.
Hyatt, D. E., &Ruddy, T. M. 1997. An examination of the
relationship between work group characteristics and
performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel
P S Y C ~ O ~50:
O ~553-585.
Y:
Ishikawa, K. 1985. What is total quality control, the
Japanese way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1993. r ,,: An
assessment of within-group interrater agreement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-309.
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 devel-
opment, vol. 10: 131-167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 1997. The impact of
cultural values on employee resistance to teams: 'To-
ward a model of globalized self-managing work team
73
effectiveness. Academy of Management Review,
2 2 : 730-757.
Kirkman, B. L., Shapiro, D. L., Novelli, L., Jr., & Brett,
J. M. 1996. Employee concerns regarding self-man-
aging work teams: A multidimensional justice per-
spective. Social Justice Research, 9: 47-67.
Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. 1998. Compar-
ing the aggregation of individual responses versus
team consensus ratings in measuring team level
data: If you want team level data, shouldn't you
ask the team?Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Academy of Management, San Diego.
Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. 1979. Importance of sup-
portive relationships in goal setting. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 64: 151-156.
Lawler, E. E., 111, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E., Jr.
1995. Creating high performance organizations:
Practices and results of employee involvement and
total quality management in Fortune 1000 compa-
nies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. 1995. Effi-
cacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 3: 645-678.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., Latham, G. P.
1981. Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980.
Psychological Bulletin, 90: 125-1 52.
Manz, C. C. 1990. Beyond self-managing work teams:
Toward self-leading teams in the workplace. In R. W.
Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in or-
ganizational change and development, vol. 4: 273-
299. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Manz, C. C. 1993. Teams and empowerment. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Atlanta.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1987. Leading workers to
lead themselves: The external leadership of self-
managing work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 32: 106-128.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1993. Business without
bosses: How self-managing teams are building
high-performance companies. New York: Wiley.
Markoczy, L. 1997. Measuring beliefs: Accept no substi-
tutes. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1228-
1242.
McGrath, J. E. 1964. Social psychology: A brief intro-
duction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Miller, K., & Monge, P. 1986. Participation, satisfaction,
and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy
of Management Journal, 29: 727-753.
Mohrman, S. A,, Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M., Jr. 1995.
Designing team-based organizations: New forms for
knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. 1994. Psychometric
theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Osterman, P. 1994. How common is workplace transfor-
74 A c a d e m y of Management Journal
mation and who adopts it? Industrial b Labor Re-
lations Review, 47: 173-188.
Pearce, J. A., 11, & Ravlin, E. C. 1987. The design and
activation of self-regulating work groups. Human
Relations, 40: 751-782.
Pearson, C. A. L. 1992. Autonomous workgroups: An
evaluation at an industrial site. Human Relations,
45: 905-936.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in
organizational research: Problems and prospects.
Journal of Management, 12: 531-544.
Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. 1993. Peer evaluation in
self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 78: 450-462.
Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. 1999. Employees' reac-
tion to the change to work teams: The influence of
"anticipatory" injustice. Journal of Organizational
Change Management: In press.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. 1987a. Groups as human
resources. In G. Ferris & K. Rowland (Eds.), Re-
search in personnel and human resources man-
agement, vol. 5: 323-356. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. 1987b. Group effectiveness:
What really matters? Sloan Management Review,
3(1): 25-31.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in
the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and vali-
dation. Academy of Management Journal, 38:
1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of
psychological empowerment. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 39: 483-504.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. 1997. A
dimensional analysis of the relationship between
psychological empowerment and effectiveness, sat-
isfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23:
679-704.
Steers, R. M. 1977. Antecedents and outcomes of organi-
zational commitment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22: 46 -56.
Susman, G. I. 1976. Autonomy at work: A sociotechnical
analysis of participative management. New York:
Praeger.
Tesluk, P. E., Brass, D. J., & Mathieu, J. E. 1996. An
examination of empowerment processes at indi-
vidual and group levels. Paper presented at the 11th
annual conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Diego.
Tesluk, P., Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M., & Mathieu, J. 1997.
Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and as-
sessment of team performance. In M. Brannick & E.
Salas (Eds.), Assessment and measurement of team
performance: Theory, research and applications:
197-224. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
February
Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G., Jr. 1993. Empowerment
inventory. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.
Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G., Jr. 1994. Does empow-
erment always work: Understanding the role of in-
trinsic motivation and personal interpretation. Jour-
nal of Management Systems, 6: 39-54.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive ele-
ments of empowerment: An "interpretive" model of
intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 15: 666-681.
Trist, E. L., Susman, G. I., & Brown, G. R. 1977. An exper-
iment in autonomous working in an American under-
ground coal mine. Human Relations, 30: 201-236.
Tymon, W. G. 1988. An empirical investigation of a cog-
nitive model of empowerment. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Temple University, Philadelphia.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. 1998. Individual self-manage-
ment: Analysis of professionals' self-managing activi-
ties in functional and cross-functional work teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 41: 340-350.
Wageman, R. 1997. Critical success factors for creating
superb self-managing teams. Organizational Dy-
namics, 26(1): 49-61.
Wagner, J. A., 111. 1994. Participation's effects on perfor-
mance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of re-
search evidence. Academy of Management Re-
view, 19: 312-330.
Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W.
1986. Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: A long-
term field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 29: 280-304.
Wellins, R. S., Wilson, R., Katz, A. J., Laughlin, P., Day,
C. R., Jr., & Price, D. 1990. Self-directed teams: A
study of current practice. Pittsburgh: DDI.
Wellins, R. S., Byham, W., & Wilson, J. 1991. Empow-
ered teams: Creating self-directed work groups
that improve quality, productivity, and participa-
tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory of
organizational management. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 14: 361-384.
Bradley L. Kirkman earned his Ph.D. in organizational
behavior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill; he is an assistant professor of business administra-
tion at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
His current research interests include work team effec-
tiveness, international management, organizational
change and development, and organizational justice.
Benson Rosen earned his Ph.D. in psychology from
Wayne Sate University; he is the Hanes Professor of
Management at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. His current research interests include work
team effectiveness, total quality management, and hu-
man resources issues.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 5 -

You have printed the following article:

Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment
Bradley L. Kirkman; Benson Rosen
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1. (Feb., 1999), pp. 58-74.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28199902%2942%3A1%3C58%3ABSAACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

References

Outward Bound: Strategies for Team Survival in an Organization

Deborah Gladstein Ancona
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2. (Jun., 1990), pp. 334-365.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28199006%2933%3A2%3C334%3AOBSFTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

Impact of Work Teams on Manufacturing Performance: A Longitudinal Field Study

Rajiv D. Banker; Joy M. Field; Roger G. Schroeder; Kingshuk K. Sinha
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4. (Aug., 1996), pp. 867-890.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28199608%2939%3A4%3C867%3AIOWTOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

The Proactive Component of Organizational Behavior: A Measure and Correlates

Thomas S. Bateman; J. Michael Crant
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14, No. 2. (Mar., 1993), pp. 103-118.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0894-3796%28199303%2914%3A2%3C103%3ATPCOOB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice

Jay A. Conger; Rabindra N. Kanungo
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 3. (Jul., 1988), pp. 471-482.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198807%2913%3A3%3C471%3ATEPITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 2 of 5 -

Attitudinal and Behavioral Effects of Autonomous Group Working: A Longitudinal Field

Study
John L. Cordery; Walter S. Mueller; Leigh M. Smith
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2. (Jun., 1991), pp. 464-476.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28199106%2934%3A2%3C464%3AAABEOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes

John L. Cotton; David A. Vollrath; Kirk L. Froggatt; Mark L. Lengnick-Hall; Kenneth R. Jennings
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 1. (Jan., 1988), pp. 8-22.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198801%2913%3A1%3C8%3AEPDFAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

Self-Regulating Work Groups: A Socio-Technical Synthesis

Thomas G. Cummings
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, No. 3. (Jul., 1978), pp. 625-634.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28197807%293%3A3%3C625%3ASWGASS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

Sociotechnical Design and Self-Managing Work Groups: The Impact on Control

Daniel Roland Denison
Journal of Occupational Behaviour, Vol. 3, No. 4. (Oct., 1982), pp. 297-314.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0142-2774%28198210%293%3A4%3C297%3ASDASWG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J

Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness

Deborah L. Gladstein
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4. (Dec., 1984), pp. 499-517.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28198412%2929%3A4%3C499%3AGICAMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K

Effects of Work Redesign on Employee Perceptions, Attitudes, and Behaviors: A Long-Term

Investigation
Ricky W. Griffin
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2. (Jun., 1991), pp. 425-435.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28199106%2934%3A2%3C425%3AEOWROE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 3 of 5 -

The Impact of Cultural Values on Employee Resistance to Teams: Toward a Model of

Globalized Self-Managing Work Team Effectiveness
Bradley L. Kirkman; Debra L. Shapiro
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 3. (Jul., 1997), pp. 730-757.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199707%2922%3A3%3C730%3ATIOCVO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

Efficacy-Performance Spirals: A Multilevel Perspective

Dana H. Lindsley; Daniel J. Brass; James B. Thomas
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3. (Jul., 1995), pp. 645-678.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199507%2920%3A3%3C645%3AESAMP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self- Managing Work
Teams
Charles C. Manz; Henry P. Sims, Jr.
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1. (Mar., 1987), pp. 106-129.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28198703%2932%3A1%3C106%3ALWTLTT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4

Measuring Beliefs: Accept No Substitutes

Lívia Markóczy
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 5. (Oct., 1997), pp. 1228-1242.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28199710%2940%3A5%3C1228%3AMBANS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review

Katherine I. Miller; Peter R. Monge
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4. (Dec., 1986), pp. 727-753.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28198612%2929%3A4%3C727%3APSAPAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation

Gretchen M. Spreitzer
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 5. (Oct., 1995), pp. 1442-1465.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28199510%2938%3A5%3C1442%3APEITWD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 4 of 5 -

Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment

Gretchen M. Spreitzer
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 2. (Apr., 1996), pp. 483-504.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28199604%2939%3A2%3C483%3ASSCOPE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E

Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment

Richard M. Steers
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1. (Mar., 1977), pp. 46-56.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197703%2922%3A1%3C46%3AAAOOOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An "Interpretive" Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation

Kenneth W. Thomas; Betty A. Velthouse
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Oct., 1990), pp. 666-681.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199010%2915%3A4%3C666%3ACEOEA%22%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

Individual Self-Management: Analysis of Professionals' Self-Managing Activities in Functional

and Cross-Functional Work Teams
Mary Uhl-Bien; George B. Graen
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 3. (Jun., 1998), pp. 340-350.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28199806%2941%3A3%3C340%3AISAOPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

Participation's Effects on Performance and Satisfaction: A Reconsideration of Research

Evidence
John A. Wagner, III
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Apr., 1994), pp. 312-330.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199404%2919%3A2%3C312%3APEOPAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Outcomes of Autonomous Workgroups: A Long-Term Field Experiment

Toby D. Wall; Nigel J. Kemp; Paul R. Jackson; Chris W. Clegg
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Jun., 1986), pp. 280-304.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-4273%28198606%2929%3A2%3C280%3AOOAWAL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 5 of 5 -

Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management

Robert Wood; Albert Bandura
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Jul., 1989), pp. 361-384.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198907%2914%3A3%3C361%3ASCTOOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5