Abstract
This study utilises a survey to examine the mediating role of team structural empowerment on the association between different aspects of management controls, specifically team structure (team standardisation and team discretion) and the use of controls (interactive and diagnostic use of controls), with team effectiveness (team performance and team viability). The findings indicate that team structural empowerment mediates the association between team structure (both team standardisation and team discretion) and the use of controls (both interactive and diagnostic) with team effectiveness (both team performance and team viability). Hence, it is recommended that managers leverage team structural empowerment in order to achieve greater team effectiveness, by placing greater emphasis on team standardisation and team discretion, and greater (less) emphasis on the interactive (diagnostic) use of controls. Such findings highlight the importance of team structural empowerment in enhancing team effectiveness, which is crucial given empowerment represents an essential component in the functioning of teams. The findings also contribute to the management accounting contingency literature by providing an important insight into the influence of organisational contextual factors, specifically management controls, in empowering teams and enhancing team effectiveness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The majority of previous studies centred on psychological empowerment (Forrester 2000; Hempel et al., 2012). Since this approach concerns individual empowerment, we contribute to the literature by focusing on the mediating role of the less researched team structural empowerment. This approach enables us to gain an insight into the empowerment of the team, versus individuals. Further, it surmounts problems associated with using the psychological empowerment measure, whereby organisations are restricted in their ability to utilise organisational and/or contextual factors to influence employees who have preconceived dispositions to the dimensions of psychological empowerment (Forrester 2000).
At the organisation level, configuration refers to a reporting authority structure (i.e., hierarchy), depicted as an organisational chart, and focuses on the relationships between superiors’ and subordinates’ job roles or positions in the organisation, including vertical and horizontal spans of control (Pugh et al., 1968). Specialisation refers to the division of labour into different functions (e.g., sales and service, maintenance, legal) and specialist roles (Pugh et al., 1968). “Formalisation denotes the extent to which rules, procedures, instructions, and communications are written” (Pugh et al., 1968, 75).
Mathieu et al. (2008) states that team performance behaviour relates to actions relevant to the team achieving its goals, which include team process improvement, learning behaviour, and cognitive task performance. Team performance behaviour and the related components were not examined in this research.
While it is possible that respondents belonged to the same team, given the sample was randomly selected from Qualtrics extensive diverse network of respondents this is unlikely.
For the purpose of determining team size respondents were informed that ‘team members are all the individuals in your team except your immediate team leader i.e. the person to whom you report to directly when working in your team’.
Five measures were used to assess the goodness-of-fit: the minimum sample discrepancy divided by the degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF); the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA); the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI); the Comparative Fit Index (CFI); and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI). The required scores for a good fit are as follows: CMIN/DF—close to 1 with a maximum of 2 or 3 (Kline 1998; Ullman 2001); GFI—above 0.90 with marginal acceptance of values above 0.8 (Hair et al., 2005); AGFI—values above 0.80 (Hair et al., 2005); CFI – values between 0.9 and 1 (Hu and Bentler 1999); RMSEA—values less than 0.08 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).
Industry was not associated with team structural empowerment in any of the eight models. The only significant findings related to positive associations between members of the extractive industries with team performance, and members of the manufacturing and personal services industries with team viability.
While the reported findings are based on using the average scores of the manifest items as latent constructs, identical significant paths were found when the manifest items were used as reflective indicators of each of the latent constructs. Further, separate regression analysis supported the strong link between the management controls and team structural empowerment, and between team structural empowerment and team effectiveness (team performance and team viability).
References
Abernethy, M. A., Bouwens, J., & van Lent, L. (2010). Leadership and control system design. Management Accounting Research, 21, 2–16.
Anthony, R. N., & Govindarajan, V. (2007). Management control systems (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill-Irwin.
Argyris, C., (1998). Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 98–105.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviours. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21, 249–269.
Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Tremblay, S. (2011). Team size and quality of group experience: The more the merrier? Group Dynamics, 15(4), 357–375.
Baird, K., Su, S., & Munir, R. (2018). The relationship between the enabling use of controls, employee empowerment and performance. Personnel Review, 47(1), 257–274.
Baird, K., & Wang, H. (2010). Employee empowerment: Extent of adoption and influential factors. Personnel Review, 39(5), 574–599.
Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 49–68.
Barrick, M. R., Bradley, B. H., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Colbert, A. E. (2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 544–557.
Bell, S. T., & Marentette, B. J. (2011). Team viability for long-term and ongoing organizational teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(4), 275–292.
Biron, M., & Bamberger, P. (2010). The impact of structural empowerment on individual well-being and performance: Taking agent preferences, self-efficacy and operational constraints into account. Human Relations, 63(2), 163–191.
Bisbe, J., Batisat-Foguet, J. M., & Chenhall, R. (2007). Defining management accounting constructs: a methodological note on the risks of conceptual misspecification. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 789–820.
Bisbe, J., & Sivabalan, P. (2017). Management control and trust in virtual settings: A case study of a virtual new product development team. Management Accounting Research, 37, 12–29.
Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 605–634. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239.
Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38(6), 551–570.
Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2013). The structural context of team learning: Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning. Organization Science, 24(4), 1120–1139.
Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21(3), 609–624.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective workgroups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.
Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behaviour and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 202–212.
Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 127–168.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 296–325.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chong, K. M., & Mahama, H. (2014). The impact of interactive and diagnostic uses of budgets on team effectiveness. Management Accounting Research, 25, 206–222.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.
Cooney, R. (2004). Empowered self-management and the design of work teams. Personnel Review, 33(6), 677–692.
Cordery, J. L., Morrison, D., Wright, B. M., & Wall, T. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2–3), 240–258.
Cordery, J. L., & Tian, W. (2017). Team design. In R. E. Rico, E. Salas, & N. Ashkanasy (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the psychology of teamwork and collaborative processes (pp. 105–128). Wiley-Blackwell.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Deloitte. (2016). Global human capital trends. Deloitte University Press.
Dillman, D. A. (2011). Tailored design method: Encyclopaedia of survey research methods. Sage publications Inc., California, USA.
Ditillo, A. (2004). Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive firms: The role of management control systems as knowledge integration mechanism. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 401–421.
Emmanuel, C., Otley, D., & Merchant, K. (1990). Accounting for Management Control (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(3), 67–80.
Frow, N., Marginson, D., & Ogden, S. (2005). Encouraging strategic behaviour while maintaining management control: Multi-functional project teams, budgets, and the negotiation of shared accountabilities in contemporary enterprises. Management Accounting Research, 16(3), 269–292.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 499–517.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behaviour (pp. 315–342). Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45–99.
Hair, J. E., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Harman, H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.
Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z.-X., & Han, Y. (2012). Team empowerment and the organizational context: Decentralization and the contrasting effects of formalization. Journal of Management, 38(2), 475–501.
Henri, J.-F. (2006a). Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 77–103.
Henri, J.-F. (2006b). Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 529–558.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851–862.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(1), 1–55.
Jiang, X., Flores, H. R., Leelawong, R., & Manz, C. C. (2016). The effect of team empowerment on team performance: A cross-cultural perspective on the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and intra-group conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 27(1), 62–87.
Jønsson, T., & Jeppeson, H. J. (2013). Under the influence of the team? An investigation of the relationships between team autonomy, individual autonomy and social influence within teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(1), 78–93.
Jordan, P., & Troth, A. (2020). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 3–14.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books Incorporated Publishers.
Katzenbach, J.R. & Smith, D.K., (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 111–120.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Passmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (pp. 131–167). JAI Press.
Kirkman, B., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 58–74.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (2000). Powering up teams. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)88449-1
Kirkman, B. J., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004b). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175–192.
Kirkman, B. J., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2004a). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader - team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group and Organization Management, 29(3), 334–368.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. Guilford Press.
Kong, D. T., Konczak, L. J., & Bottom, W. P. (2015). Team performance as a joint function of team member satisfaction and agreeableness. Small Group Research, 46(2), 160–178.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S., (2013). Work Groups and Teams in Organizations: Review Update, [Electronic version]. Retrieved [23 August 2017], from Cornell University, School of Industrial, and Labor Relations site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/927.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.
KPMG. (2012). Creating and optimized organisation: opportunities and challenges. KPMG.
Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21(5), 563–585.
Laschinger, H. K., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 527–545.
Levi, D. (2017). Group dynamics for teams. Sage Publications.
Lewis, R. L., Brown, D. A., & Sutton, N. C. (2019). Control and empowerment as an organising paradox: Implications for management control systems. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 32(2), 483–507.
Luciano, M. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2014). Leading multiple teams: Average and relative external leadership influences on team empowerment and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 322–331.
Malmi, T., & Brown, D. (2008). Management control systems as a package–Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19, 287–300.
Marginson, D., McAulay, L., Roush, M., & van Zijl, T. (2014). Examining a positive psychological role for performance measures. Management Accounting Research, 25, 63–75.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccari, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423–1439.
Martyn, P., Sweeney, B., & Curtis, E. (2016). Strategy and control: 25 years of empirical use of Simons’ levers of control framework. Journal of Accounting and Organisational Change, 12(3), 281–324.
Mathieu, J. M., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancement and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.
Matsuo, M., & Matsuo, T. (2017). The effect of diagnostic and interactive uses of management control systems and managerial coaching on reflection in teams. Journal of Accounting and Organisational Change, 13(3), 410–424.
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., & Cigularov, K. P. (2012). Drivers and outcomes of team psychological empowerment: A meta-analytic review and model test. Organisational Psychology Review, 3(2), 101–137.
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., O’Boyle, E., Jr., & Cigularov, K. (2013). Drivers and outcomes of team psychological empowerment: A meta-analytic review and model test. Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 101–137.
McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. Holt.
Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: Organisational constitution and trust as controls. The Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 143–153.
Monje Amor, A., Vásquez, J. P. A., & Fáña, J. A. (2020). Transformational leadership and work engagement: Exploring the mediating role of structural empowerment. European Management Journal, 38, 169–178.
Müller-Stewens, B., Widener, S. K., Möller, K., & Steinmann, J. (2020). The role of diagnostic and interactive control uses in innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 80, 1–21.
Naranjo-Gil, D., & Hartmann, F. (2007). Management accounting systems, top management team heterogeneity and strategic change. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 735–756.
Nieminen, A., & Lehtonen, M. (2008). Organisational control in programme teams: An empirical study in change programme context. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 63–72.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill.
Ozaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(6), 335–344.
Pardo del Val, M., & Lloyd, B. (2003). Measuring empowerment. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 24(2), 102–108.
Pearce, C. L., & Herbik, P. A. (2004). Citizenship behaviour at the team level of analysis: The effects of team leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and team size. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3), 293–310.
Piccoli, G., Powell, A., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: Team control structure, work processes, and team effectiveness. Information Technology and People, 17(4), 359–379.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organisation structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1), 65–105.
Rose, N., Wagner, W., Mayer, A., Nagengast, B., & Savalei, V. (2019). Model-based manifest and latent composite scores in structural equation models. Collabra. Psychology, 5(1), 9–29.
Scarnati, J. T., & Scarnati, B. J. (2002). Empowerment: The key to quality. The TQM Magazine, 14(2), 110–119.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Scott, T. W., & Tiessen, P. (1999). Performance measurement and managerial teams. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 263–285.
Seibert, S., Silver, S., & Randolph, W. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332–350.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25–31.
Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Harvard Business School Press.
Simons, R. (2000). Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy. Prentice Hall.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483–504.
Spreitzer, G. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 54–72). Sage Publications.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135–148.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.
Sundstrom, E. (1999). Supporting work team effectiveness: best management practices for fostering high performance. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Swenson, D. X. (1997). Requisite conditions for team empowerment. Empowerment in Organizations, 5(1), 16–25.
Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure and judgments of team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 248–265.
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion and team effectiveness. Group and Organisation Management, 34(2), 170–205.
Tessier, S., & Otley, D. (2012). A conceptual development of Simons’ levers of control framework. Management Accounting Research, 23, 171–185.
Tuomela, T. (2005). The interplay of different levers of control: A case study of introducing a new performance measurement system. Management Accounting Review, 16(3), 293–320.
Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (fourth edition). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. Wiley.
Van der Stede, W. A. (2001). Measuring ‘tight budgetary control’. Management Accounting Research, 12(119), 137. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.2000.0149.
van Mierlo, H., Rutte, C. G., Vermunt, J. K., Kompier, M. A. J., & Doorewaard, J. A. M. C. (2006). Individual autonomy in work teams: The role of team autonomy, self-efficacy, and social support. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(3), 281–299.
Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 25–33.
Widener, S. K. (2007). An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 757–788.
Yang, S.-B., & Choi, S. O. (2009). Employee empowerment and team performance. Team Performance Management, 5(6), 289–301.
Ylinen, M., & Gullkvist, B. (2014). The effects of organic and mechanistic control in exploratory and exploitative innovations. Management Accounting Research, 25, 93–112.
Yu, Y., Baird, K., & Tung, A. (2021). Human resource management in Australian hospitals: The role of controls in influencing the effectiveness of performance management systems. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(4), 920–947.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Not applicable.
Availability of data and material
The data is stored in SPSS and is available if requested.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A: questionnaire items and CFA statistics
Appendix A: questionnaire items and CFA statistics
These are the retained items after confirmatory factor analysis. The first item of each scale has no t-value since it has a fixed parameter in AMOS.
Constructs and items | Factor loading | t-value | SE | Cronbach’s alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Team structure | ||||
Team standardisation | 0.79 | |||
There are unwritten procedures for managing the situations that arise when the team is doing their work | 0.819* | NA | NA | |
There are written rules, procedures that specify how the team does their work | 0.972* | 11.895 | 0.094 | |
The team follows standard operating procedures or practices to do the work.a | 0.747* | 11.465 | 0.086 | |
Team discretion | 0.90 | |||
The team has control over what the team is supposed to do when carrying out their team work | 0.931* | NA | NA | |
The team is free to choose the procedure(s) to use, in carrying out teamwork | 0.757* | 15.389 | 0.056 | |
I can decide when to do particular activities as part of my work in the team | 0.682* | 13.284 | 0.058 | |
I am able to choose the way to go about doing my work in the team | 0.877* | 18.315 | 0.051 | |
Goodness-of-fit: CMIN/DF = 2.053; GFI = 0.987; CFI = 0.994; AGFI = 0.953; RMSEA = 0.055 | ||||
Use of controls | ||||
Interactive use of control | 0.79 | |||
Open channels of communication, free flow of information are emphasised in teamwork | 0.773* | NA | NA | |
The team including the team leader often resolves task or project performance issues as a team informally.b | 0.845* | 16.602 | 0.064 | |
Diagnostic use of control | 0.91 | |||
Team members’ performance is evaluated using detailed performance measures | 0.707* | NA | NA | |
Teams are evaluated on the extent to which each of the task or project performance target performance line items are achieved | −0.762* | −15.184 | 0.066 | |
A great deal of importance is placed on teams’ interim task or project performance in respect to task or project milestones | 0.855* | 14.885 | 0.090 | |
Team members are required to report the actions taken to correct causes of deviation from the interim task or project performance targets | 0.829* | 15.503 | 0.077 | |
Teams are evaluated on the extent to which the overall task or project performance targets are achieved | −0.867* | −15.095 | 0.081 | |
A great deal of importance is placed on the teams’ project performance target deviations from budgeted performance | 0.843* | 15.008 | 0.084 | |
Goodness-of-fit: CMIN/DF = 2.452; GFI = 0.981; CFI = 0.991; AGFI = 0.942; RMSEA = 0.065 | ||||
Team structural empowerment | 0.96 | |||
Please indicate the extent to which you believe the following applies in your team when working on a major task or project: The team has authority/power/influence to make and implement decisions relating to the project or major task at each of the following three decision-making stages: | ||||
Implementation and control | 0.657* | NA | NA | |
Designing alternatives and ultimate decision | 0.791* | 15.684 | 0.078 | |
Identification of problems | 0.800* | 14.635 | 0.092 | |
The team contributes directly to the decision-making process, rather than through intermediaries (e.g. superiors) at each of the following three decision-making stages: | ||||
Implementation and control | 0.842* | 14.553 | 0.089 | |
Designing alternatives and ultimate decision | 0.882* | 14.135 | 0.098 | |
Identification of problems | 0.831* | 13.607 | 0.103 | |
There are official channels or certain norms or rules to guarantee the team's participation in the decision-making process at each of the following three decision-making stages: | ||||
Implementation and control | 0.774* | 13.860 | 0.085 | |
Designing alternatives and ultimate decision | 0.836* | 13.688 | 0.100 | |
Identification of problems | 0.758* | 12.606 | 0.102 | |
The team has a high level of collaboration / involvement in the decision-making at each of the following three decision-making stages: | ||||
Implementation and control | 0.848* | 14.860 | 0.087 | |
Designing alternatives and ultimate decision | 0.838* | 13.716 | 0.096 | |
Identification of problems | 0.807* | 13.161 | 0.102 | |
Goodness-of-fit: CMIN/DF = 2.001; GFI = 0.976; CFI = 0.993; AGFI = 0.929; RMSEA = 0.054 | ||||
Team effectiveness | ||||
Team performance | 0.89 | |||
The extent to which the team met or exceeded their performance standards at the end of the project or major task | 0.636* | NA | NA | |
The satisfaction of people outside of the team, with the overall quality of the service provided by the team on the project or major task | 0.748* | 12.843 | 0.090 | |
Completing the project or major task within the scheduled timeline | 0.845* | 12.855 | 0.099 | |
The extent to which the team performed their tasks competently when working on the project or major task | 0.853* | 13.319 | 0.097 | |
The quality of work produced during the project or major task | 0.888* | 13.441 | 0.105 | |
Overall, the manner in which the team worked together on the project or major task | 0.768* | 12.104 | 0.114 | |
Team viability | 0.96 | |||
I am satisfied with the team members that I work(ed) with on the task or project | 0.772* | NA | NA | |
My team can take on nearly any task and complete it | 0.793* | 15.977 | 0.062 | |
We all take responsibility for any loss or poor performance by our team | 0.738* | 15.735 | 0.063 | |
Overall, the team experienced a high level of satisfaction when working on the project or task | 0.844* | 17.201 | 0.058 | |
Our team is united in trying to reach its performance goals | 0.816* | 16.581 | 0.062 | |
My team members stick together | 0.872* | 18.017 | 0.056 | |
I am very satisfied with working in this team on the task or project | 0.806* | 16.363 | 0.059 | |
My team members help each other when working on the task or project | 0.715* | 14.134 | 0.062 | |
My team members have great confidence that the team can perform effectively | 0.808* | 16.365 | 0.056 | |
I am pleased with the way my team members and I work(ed) together on the task or project | 0.846* | 17.218 | 0.061 | |
My team members get along well together | 0.738* | 14.661 | 0.059 | |
My team has a lot of team spirit | 0.776* | 15.589 | 0.059 | |
Goodness of fit: CMIN/DF = 2.969; GFI = 0.908; CFI = 0.961; AGFI = 0.851; RMSEA = 0.076 | ||||
Task uncertainty | ||||
Task variability | 0.84 | |||
Difficult problems arose when doing the work on the task or project for which there were no immediate or obvious solutions | 0.667* | NA | NA | |
The team performed the same work from day-to-day on the task or project | − 0.833* | -10.171 | 0.115 | |
When doing work on the task or project, problems or issues arose requiring substantially different procedures to do our work | 0.886* | 10.783 | 0.115 | |
Task difficulty | 0.89 | |||
There is a clearly understood way of doing the major types of work encounter(ed) on the task or project | 0.659* | NA | NA | |
The day-to-day situations, problems or issues encountered in performing our work is the same | 0.824* | 11.934 | 0.095 | |
There is a clearly defined body of knowledge which guides the work done on the task or project | 0.732* | 12.480 | 0.071 | |
It is easy to know if the work on the task or project, is being done correctly | 0.833* | 11.720 | 0.088 | |
The team followed the same work procedures or established practices when doing work on the task or project | 0.884* | 12.212 | 0.096 | |
The team is generally certain about what the outcomes of the work efforts on the task or project will be | 0.717* | 11.044 | 0.090 | |
Goodness-of-fit: CMIN/DF = 3.511; GFI = 0.957; CFI = 0.831; AGFI = 0.898; RMSEA = 0.086 | ||||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baird, K., Baard, V. Management controls and team effectiveness: the mediating role of team structural empowerment. J Manag Control 32, 517–558 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-021-00327-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-021-00327-2