The Impact of Team Empowerment on Virtual Team Performance: The Moderating Role of Face-to-Face Interaction

We investigated the relationship between team empowerment and virtual team performance and the moderating role of the extent of face-to-face interaction using 35 sales and service virtual teams in a high-technology organization. Team empowerment was positively related to two independent assessments of virtual team performance— process improvement and customer satisfaction. Further, the number of face-to-face meetings moderated the relationship between team empowerment and process improvement: team empowerment was a stronger predictor for teams that met face-toface less, rather than more, frequently.

[1]  P. Bliese.  Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. , 2000 .

[2]  G. Vozikis,et al.  Trust in Virtual Teams , 2004 .

[3]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[4]  John E. Sawyer,et al.  Virtualness and Knowledge in Teams: Managing the Love Triangle of Organizations, Individuals, and Information Technology , 2003, MIS Q..

[5]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance , 1992 .

[6]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. , 1997 .

[7]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Efficacy-Performing Spirals: A Multilevel Perspective , 1995 .

[8]  R. Liden,et al.  Task Interdependence as a Moderator of the Relation Between Group Control and Performance , 1997 .

[9]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual Teams , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Raymond T. Sparrowe,et al.  An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  J. Colquitt,et al.  KNOWLEDGE WORKER TEAM EFFECTIVENESS: THE ROLE OF AUTONOMY, INTERDEPENDENCE, TEAM DEVELOPMENT, AND CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT VARIABLES , 1997 .

[12]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system , 1996 .

[13]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[14]  C. S. Koberg,et al.  Antecedents and Outcomes of Empowerment , 1999 .

[15]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[16]  Jessica Lipnack,et al.  Virtual Teams: People Working Across Boundaries with Technology, Second Edition , 2000 .

[17]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  Getting It Together: Temporal Coordination and Conflict Management in Global Virtual Teams , 2001 .

[18]  Amy Buhl Conn,et al.  Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[19]  Benson Rosen,et al.  Virtual team effectiveness: a proposed research agenda , 1999, Inf. Syst. J..

[20]  Edward L. Deci,et al.  The Empirical Exploration of Intrinsic Motivational Processes1 , 1980 .

[21]  T. Ruddy,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE: ONCE MORE INTO THE BREECH , 1997 .

[22]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  A Typology of Virtual Teams , 2002 .

[23]  L. James.  Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement. , 1982 .

[24]  G. Spreitzer.  Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment , 1996 .

[25]  Benson Rosen,et al.  ASSESSING THE INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF TEAM CONSENSUS RATINGS OVER AGGREGATION OF INDIVIDUAL‐LEVEL DATA IN PREDICTING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS , 2001 .

[26]  Merrill Warkentin,et al.  Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based Conference System* , 1997 .

[27]  Kate D. Abel,et al.  Practices that Support Team Learning and Their Impact on Speed to Market and New Product Success , 1999 .

[28]  R. N. Kanungo,et al.  The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice , 1988 .

[29]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance , 1999 .

[30]  D. Chan.  Functional Relations among Constructs in the Same Content Domain at Different Levels of Analysis: A Typology of Composition Models , 1998 .

[31]  D. Armstrong,et al.  Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. , 2002 .

[32]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE WORK GROUPS , 1993 .

[33]  Amy E. Randel,et al.  Understanding Group Efficacy , 2000 .

[34]  Claus W. Langfred.  Work-Group Design and Autonomy , 2000 .

[35]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes , 2001 .

[36]  G. Pisano,et al.  Disrupted Routines: Team Learning and New Technology Implementation in Hospitals , 2001 .

[37]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future , 1998 .

[38]  Jeffrey Stamps,et al.  Virtual teams: The new way to work , 1999 .

[39]  John C. Redding,et al.  The Radical Team Handbook: Harnessing the Power of Team Learning for Breakthrough Results , 2000 .

[40]  John M. Jermier,et al.  Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement , 1978 .

[41]  Benson Rosen,et al.  Powering up teams , 2000 .

[42]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment , 1999 .

[43]  M. Maznevski,et al.  Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness , 2000 .

[44]  W. J. Bigoness,et al.  Leadership and Innovation among Teams , 1997 .

[45]  Nitin Nohria,et al.  Fast Forward: The Best Ideas on Managing Business Change , 1996 .

[46]  Gerald J. Gorn,et al.  Job involvement and motivation: Are intrinsically motivated managers more job involved? , 1980 .

[47]  Richard S. Wellins,et al.  Empowered Teams: Creating Self-Directed Work Groups That Improve Quality, Productivity, and Participation , 1991 .

[48]  Frances J. Milliken,et al.  Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups , 1996 .

[49]  G. Spreitzer.  PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: DIMENSIONS, MEASUREMENT, AND VALIDATION , 1995 .

[50]  Richard E. Potter,et al.  Understanding Human Interaction and Performance in the Virtual Team , 2002 .

[51]  L. James,et al.  rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. , 1993 .

[52]  A. Edmondson.  Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams , 1999 .

[53]  Robert C. Ford,et al.  Empowerment: A matter of degree , 1995 .

[54]  K. Thomas,et al.  Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation , 1990 .

[55]  J. Hackman,et al.  The design of work teams , 1987 .

[56]  Susan Albers Mohrman,et al.  Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work , 1995 .

[57]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change , 1996 .

[58]  Wayne F. Cascio,et al.  Managing a virtual workplace , 2000 .

[59]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[60]  Seth R. Silver,et al.  Taking Empowerment to the Next Level: A Multiple-Level Model of Empowerment, Performance, and Satisfaction , 2004 .

[61]  S. G. Cohen,et al.  What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite , 1997 .

[62]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. , 2002 .

[63]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory , 1999 .

[64]  Amy C. Edmondson,et al.  The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective , 2002, Organ. Sci..