This paper provides meta-analytic support for an integrated model specifying the antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment. Results indicate that contextual antecedent constructs representing perceived high-performance managerial practices, socio-political support, leadership, and work characteristics are each strongly related to psychological empowerment. Positive self-evaluation traits are related to psychological empowerment and are as strongly related as the contextual factors. Psychological empowerment is in turn positively associated with a broad range of employee outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and task and contextual performance, and is negatively associated with employee strain and turnover intentions. Team empowerment is positively related to team performance. Further, the magnitude of parallel antecedent and outcome relationships at the individual and team levels is statistically indistinguishable, demonstrating the generalizability of empowerment theory across these 2 levels of analysis. A series of analyses also demonstrates the validity of psychological empowerment as a unitary second-order construct. Implications and future directions for empowerment research and theory are discussed.

We present a comprehensive theory of collective organizational engagement, integrating engagement theory with the resource management model. We propose that engagement can be considered an organization-level construct influenced by motivationally focused organizational practices that represent firm-level resources. Specifically, we evaluate three distinct organizational practices as resources-motivating work design, human resource management practices, and CEO transformational leadership-that can facilitate perceptions that members of the organization are as a whole physically, cognitively, and emotionally invested at work. Our theory is grounded in the notion that, when used jointly, these organizational resources maximize each of the three underlying psychological conditions necessary for full engagement; namely, psychological meaningfulness, safety, and availability. The resource management model also underscores the value of top management team members implementing and monitoring progress on the firm's strategy as a means to enhance the effects of organizational resources on collective organizational engagement. We empirically test this theory in a sample of 83 firms, and provide evidence that collective organizational engagement mediates the relationship between the three organizational resources and firm performance. Furthermore, we find that strategic implementation positively moderates the relationship between the three organizational resources and collective organizational engagement. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

Over the past 30 years substantial research has focused on the concept of self-leadership. The authors adopt a multilevel perspective to review this research at both individual and team levels of analysis. At the individual level, studies consistently show that increased self-leadership corresponds with better affective responses and improved work performance. Findings are not as consistent at the team level. Relationships between team-level self-leadership and both affective and performance outcomes appear to be moderated by contextual factors. The authors also identify internal and external forces that influence self-leadership. Among these forces, external leadership is particularly important, as self-leadership is not a complete substitute for external leadership. Specifically, external leadership in the forms of empowering leadership and shared leadership facilitate self-leadership of individuals and teams. The authors also identify a number of cross-level research questions that illustrate how future research can benefit from exploring ways that self-leadership at the individual level interacts with self-leadership at the team level.

Although interdependence is a central aspect of team design, there has been a lack of clarity regarding the meaning and impact of different forms of interdependence. To provide theoretical clarity and to advance research on team interdependence, we develop an organizing, conceptual framework of interdependence in teams and test it using meta-analysis. We first review and tie together different conceptualizations of interdependence in the literature and illustrate how they converge around 2 major constructs: task interdependence and outcome interdependence. After providing integrative definitions of these forms of interdependence, as well as subdimensions, we then explore the relative effects of task and outcome interdependence on team functioning and performance. Specifically, we propose a pattern of differential effects in which task interdependence is primarily associated with team performance through its effects on task-focused team functioning (i.e., transition/action processes, collective efficacy), whereas outcome interdependence is primarily associated with team performance through its effects on relational team functioning (i.e., interpersonal processes, cohesion). We test these differential effects using a meta-analytic database of 107 independent samples and 7,563 teams. The meta-analytic path model provides strong support for our hypotheses. Implications and future directions for the study of interdependence in work teams are discussed.

Although transformational leadership has been studied extensively, the magnitude of the relationship between transformational leadership and follower performance across criterion types and levels of analysis remains unclear. Based on 117 independent samples over 113 primary studies, the current meta-analytic study showed that transformational leadership was positively related to individual-level follower performance across criterion types, with a stronger relationship for contextual performance than for task performance across most study settings. In addition, transformational leadership was positively related to performance at the team and organization levels. Moreover, both meta-analytic regression and relative importance analyses consistently showed that transformational leadership had an augmentation effect over transactional leadership (contingent reward) in predicting individual-level contextual performance and team-level performance. Contrary to our expectation, however, no augmentation effect of transformational leadership over contingent reward was found in predicting individual-level task performance. Instead, contingent reward explained incremental variance in individual-level task performance beyond that explained by transformational leadership.