535443

research-article2014

JOMXXX10.1177/0149206314535443Journal of ManagementGonzalez-Mul et al. / Channeled Autonomy

Journal of Management
Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 116
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314535443
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Channeled Autonomy: The Joint Effects of

Autonomy and Feedback on Team Performance
Through Organizational Goal Clarity
Erik Gonzalez-Mul
University of Iowa

Stephen H. Courtright
Texas A&M University

David DeGeest
University of Iowa

Jee-Young Seong
Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology

Doo-Seung Hong
Seoul National University

Past research suggests that autonomy has highly variable effects on team performance, and that
one explanation for this pattern of findings is that autonomous teams fall into a state of disorder
where they lack clarity regarding the goals of the broader organization. Following this perspective, the authors develop a model proposing that performance feedback coupled with high
autonomy enables teams to have greater clarity of the organizations goals, which in turn
increases team performance. This model was tested on 110 teams in a defense industry manufacturing firm in South Korea using mediated-moderation techniques. Results indicate that
highly autonomous teams that receive a high degree of performance feedback outperform other
teams because of their heightened level of organizational goal clarity. In contrast, highly

Acknowledgments: An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the 2012 Academy of Management Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. The authors would like to acknowledge Greg Stewart, Ning Li, and In-Sue Oh
for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We would also like to thank Craig Wallace and two
anonymous reviewers for their support and developmental feedback throughout the revision process.
Corresponding author: Erik Gonzalez-Mul, University of Iowa, W361 Pappajohn Business Building, Iowa City,
IA 52242-1994, USA.
E-mail: erik-gonzalez-mule@uiowa.edu

1
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

2 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

autonomous teams that receive low levels of feedback perform at the lowest levels compared to
other teams because of a lack of organizational goal clarity. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for theory, research, and practice.
Keywords: team design; autonomy; feedback; team performance

In response to an increasingly dynamic and uncertain business environment, many organizations structure their workforces around so-called self-managed teams, or teams characterized by high levels of decision-making autonomy (Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten,
2012). Such teams have the freedom and flexibility to make independent decisions on a range
of critical issues (Manz & Sims, 1987), which theoretically should enable autonomous teams
to achieve higher levels of performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Seibert, Wang, &
Courtright, 2011). However, the research evidence to date on the relationship between autonomy and team performance is mixed. For example, despite meta-analytic results suggesting
a moderate, positive relationship between team autonomy and team performance, Stewart
(2006) also found a remarkably large degree of variance in this relationship that was not
attributable to sampling error. Similarly, in a qualitative review of the self-leadership literature, Stewart, Courtright, and Manz (2011) found that whereas high autonomy enhanced
team performance in some studies, other studies found that autonomy had no relationship,
and sometimes even a negative relationship, with team performance. These mixed results beg
the question: Under what conditions is autonomy beneficial for teams?
In responding to that question, theory and research suggest that one risk associated with
team-level autonomy is that of autonomous teams falling into a state of disorder where they
independently pursue actions that are inconsistent with organizational prerogatives. For
example, organizational design theorists have long contended that autonomous teams may
become isolated from the broader organizational environment without a mechanism to make
the organizations goals clear (Galbraith, 1973; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Moreover,
Wallace, Johnson, Mathe, and Paul (2011) found that having a climate of empowerment only
benefited unit-level performance when employees felt a shared sense of accountability that
directed their effortsthat is, when they believed their actions could be subject to evaluation
by a salient audience. In essence, these perspectives suggest that autonomy is unlikely to
benefit team performance unless other mechanisms are present to help bring direction and
order to autonomous teams efforts. However, what specific mechanisms bring order and
direction to autonomous teams, and why do they ultimately help autonomy to be positively
associated with team performance? Answering these questions is the primary objective of our
study.
In the present study, we focus on the role that performance feedback plays in bringing
order and direction to autonomous teams in the form of greater organizational goal clarity. In
particular, we argue that with lower performance feedback, a potential risk of autonomy in
teams is a lack of clarity as to the broader organizations goals, which may cause teams to
overlook decision alternatives and strategies that are beneficial for the organization at large
(Haas, 2010). However, with relatively higher levels of feedback, autonomy is linked to
greater clarity regarding the goals of the broader organization (Sawyer, 1992). In

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

Gonzalez-Mul et al. / Channeled Autonomy 3

Figure 1
Hypothesized Model of the Joint Effects of Autonomy and Feedback on Teams

Performance
Feedback

Autonomy

Organizational
Goal Clarity

Team
Performance

short, performance feedback channels the direction of autonomous teams work toward the
attainment of organizationally desirable goals and provides a safeguard from falling into a
state of disorder (Katz & Kahn, 1966), creating what may be referred to as a channeled
autonomy effectan interaction between autonomy and feedback that relates to heightened
organizational goal clarity and higher levels of team performance. This proposed pattern of
relationships is shown in Figure 1.
This study contributes to the literature in two key ways. First, our study answers a call in
the literature for research on moderators of the autonomyteam performance relationship. As
noted above, although a great deal of research has investigated the relationship of autonomy
with team performance, there are mixed findings regarding this relationship (Stewart, 2006;
Stewart et al., 2011), with very little research examining contingencies of team autonomy.
The current study aims to provide an answer to the question of when autonomy is beneficial
for teamsnamely, when they receive high levels of performance feedback. Thus, we extend
recent research that has explored contingencies of autonomy and empowerment (e.g., Wallace
et al., 2011) and contribute to the nascent literature on interactions between team design
characteristics (e.g., Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997; Langfred, 2005; Stewart & Barrick, 2000).
Second, we investigate the role of a theoretically relevant mediator of the interaction between
team autonomy and performance feedback: organizational goal clarity. In doing so, we also
answer the question of why teams high on autonomy and performance feedback achieve
higher levels of performancenamely, because such teams are clear as to their parent organizations goals. In concert, these efforts serve to provide insights on optimal mixes of structural features for teams and uncover why such mixes are associated with team performance
(Sundstrom, de Meuse, & Futrell, 1990).

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Benefits and Risks of Autonomy
Autonomy has drawn the attention of scholars seeking to design work that motivates individuals and teams to achieve high levels of performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976;

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

4 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Stewart, 2006). In this study, we focus on team-level decision-making autonomy, defined as

the degree of freedom, independence, and discretion that teams are given to make decisions
themselves as opposed to having decisions made for them by supervisors (Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2006; Stewart, 2006). Dynamic and rapid change in the immediate environment
necessitates allowing teams to exercise decision-making autonomy (versus following a rigid
plan of action enforced by an external leader) because it better enables teams to adapt to these
environmental demands (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).
Autonomy is also a mechanism that provides individuals with the discretion to not only communicate within their team to determine which goals to pursue, but to be more proactive in
exercising voice and seeking feedback from outside sources (Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006;
Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeke, & Rosenthal, 1964). This logic is consistent with the role-episode model of role clarity (Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964), which postulates that
employees independently interact with others to gain the knowledge necessary to carry out
their work tasks.
Despite the supposed beneficial effects of autonomy, a question generally taken for
granted by groups and teams scholars is how autonomous teams know and understand the
goals that are valued by the broader organization in which they are embedded, and by extension, which goals they should pursue. To that end, some scholars have suggested that a risk
of autonomy is falling into a state of disorder wherein autonomous teams or units generate
and pursue goals that are incongruous with those of the broader organization (Carnall, 1982;
Galbraith, 1973; Haas, 2010; Wallace et al., 2011). Operationally, this state of disorder is
characterized by a lack of organizational goal clarity, an emergent state of shared belief in
which team members are collectively aware of and understand the goals and objectives of the
organization in which it is embedded (Locke, 1991). There is a key difference between organizational and team goal clarity. Namely, teams may be clear on which goals they are pursuing (e.g., high team goal clarity), yet those goals could be incongruous with those that the
organization wants them to pursue (e.g., low organizational goal clarity). Because the focus
of our model is the notion that autonomous teams may become unaware of or misunderstand
the goals of the organization where they are embedded, we focus on organizational goal clarity rather than team goal clarity. Organizational design perspectives suggest that a lack of
organizational goal clarity could cause teams to overlook decision alternatives and courses of
action that incorporate a broader perspective of the organizations needs (Daft & Lengel,
1986; Sundstrom et al., 1990).

Moderating Role of Performance Feedback

In order to help autonomous teams gain greater clarity of the organizations goals, some
scholars have suggested that organizations must engage with teams in a process of information exchange (Daft & Lengel, 1986). A specific and critically important aspect of this information exchange is performance feedback (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Performance feedback is
defined as information about the actual performance or actions of a system used to control
the future actions of a system (Nadler, 1979, p. 310).1 According to goal-setting theory
(Locke & Latham, 1990, 2013), as individuals make progress towards accomplishing their
goals, feedback serves to direct individuals attention towards the aspects of the task for
which they have received feedback, thereby acting as a guide to their future goal setting and,
ultimately, their behavior (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Similarly, control theory proposes that

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

Gonzalez-Mul et al. / Channeled Autonomy 5

feedback ensures the attainment of valued goals or outcomes by identifying discrepancies

between current performance and established standards (Klein, 1991), which motivates the
assessment and readjustment of goals to meet established standards. Along these lines,
DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, and Milner (2004) found that team-level feedback promotes
team effectiveness primarily because it allows team members to understand and effectively
calibrate the goals they should pursue. Without feedback, teams may set completely unrealistic team-level goals (p. 1052).
Based on the preceding theoretical background, we argue that although high autonomy
provides teams with the ability to determine what goals the organization deems necessary to
maintain effective performance, there is no guarantee that autonomous, self-regulating teams
will always be cognizant of the organizations goals and objectives because they may pursue
courses of action that, although clear to them, are not desired by the parent organization.
Hence, to prevent disorder in autonomous teams, there is a need to ensure that autonomous
teams remain aware of the organizations goals so they can in turn make decisions and take
courses of action beneficial to the organization. We argue that this need is at least partially
fulfilled by performance feedback because feedback provides a mechanism for organizations
to provide teams with information relevant to goals desired by the organization (DeShon et
al., 2004) while also directing the teams attention towards their goal progress (Locke &
Latham, 1990, 2013). Despite scholars assertions that autonomous teams lacking in feedback will suffer from a lack of organizational goal clarity, to our knowledge this study is the
first to directly test this idea.
A practical example of how autonomy and feedback complement one another occurred at
Texas Instruments when the company began designing autonomous work teams. Management
began this intervention by encouraging self-direction and independent action, with the message being, Youre empowered; now go do what you want to do (Thompson, 1999, p. 1).
However, the intervention initially failed because teams had little idea about which objectives were important to the organization and thus critical to pursue. However, once the organization began providing feedback on the teams goal processes, the organization began
seeing the benefits of high team autonomy largely because teams had a clearer idea of the
organizations goals (Wellins, Byham, & Dixon, 1994). Throughout the implementation,
teams maintained significant authority over tasks, processes, and decision-making; however,
receiving performance feedback allowed teams to independently make better-informed decisions that accounted for the broader organizational contexts needs. Thus, as this example
demonstrates, autonomy without feedback can cause teams to be like an island isolated
from the rest of the world (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2000, p. 39) while providing performance
feedback channels the efforts of autonomous teams by bringing increased clarity regarding
the goals desired by the organization.
Based on this logic and the preceding example, we predict that highly autonomous teams
experience increased organizational clarity as they receive relatively higher degrees of performance feedback. In contrast, teams with high autonomy but relatively little feedback will
have reduced organizational goal clarity. In other words, these teams will know that they
have to do something, but without sufficient feedback, they will not know what that something is.
Hypothesis 1: Team autonomy and performance feedback have an interactive relationship with
organizational goal clarity such that the relationship between autonomy and organizational goal

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

6 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

clarity will be positive for teams with higher levels of performance feedback, and negative for
teams with lower levels of performance feedback.

Organizational Goal Clarity and Team Performance

In addition to hypothesizing that autonomy and performance feedback will interact to
associate with organizational goal clarity, we also propose that organizational goal clarity
will, in turn, be positively related to team performance. This prediction is consistent with
input-mediator-output models of team performance, which posit that team emergent states
mediate and are more proximal to performance than team design characteristics such as
autonomy and performance feedback (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). As
alluded to previously, we extend previous studies that have examined contingencies of autonomy and empowerment (Wallace et al., 2011) by investigating the relationship of a theoretically derived outcome of those interactions (i.e., organizational goal clarity) on performance.
Furthermore, despite its role as a critical antecedent of team performance, surprisingly few
studies have examined the link between organizational goal clarity and team performance.
We propose that organizational goal clarity is positively related to team performance for
two reasons. First, clear understanding of a goal enhances performance by channeling effort
toward the attainment of that goal (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2013). Moreover, team-level
motivation includes the direction, intensity, and persistence of goal-directed efforts (Chen &
Kanfer, 2006). With regards to teams embedded within a larger organizational context, organizational goal clarity represents the directional aspect of team motivation, such that without
knowing the organizations goals, a team cannot direct intensity or persistence towards
accomplishing them. Indeed, given that the parent organization is the teams primary stakeholder and ultimately evaluates team performance, accomplishing the goals outlined by the
organization is critical to team performance. Second, organizational goal clarity leads teams
to collectively develop a clear vision of how their behaviors contribute to the organizations
performance and providing the knowledge of which goals are valued by the organization
(Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Spreitzer, 1995). This leads, in turn, to higher levels of performance
(Hu & Liden, 2011).
Hypothesis 2: Organizational goal clarity will be positively related to team performance.

Integrated Mediated-Moderation Model

Taken together, Hypotheses 1 and 2 point to a mediated-moderation model where organizational goal clarity mediates the interactive relationship of team autonomy and performance
feedback with team performance. Specifically, because Hypothesis 1 points to a moderating
effect for performance feedback on the relationship between autonomy and organizational
goal clarity, and Hypothesis 2 proposes a direct relationship of organizational goal clarity on
team performance, our hypotheses collectively reflect a first-stage mediated-moderation
model wherein autonomy and performance feedback have an interactive relationship with
team performance through the mediating relationship of organizational goal clarity.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between autonomy and team performance is moderated by performance feedback through the mediating effects of organizational goal clarity, such that autonomy

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

Gonzalez-Mul et al. / Channeled Autonomy 7

will have a positive indirect relationship with team performance (via high organization goal
clarity) when feedback is higher, and a negative indirect relationship with team performance (via
low organizational goal clarity) when feedback is lower.

Method
Sample and Procedures
Data were collected from team members and leaders over 2 months in 2010 from teams
with some degree of decision-making autonomy in a large, private sector manufacturing firm
operating in the defense industry in South Korea. Team members individually completed
questionnaires that contained items related to the team autonomy, performance feedback, and
organizational goal clarity constructs. The directions for this questionnaire explicitly
instructed team members to respond with reference to their team (i.e., Please answer the
following questions about the work you do on your team). Team leaders, who were not
members of the team, were asked to provide performance ratings of their team. The questionnaires were written in English and translated to Korean according to established translation
procedures (Brislin, 1980). Surveys were distributed to 1,500 team members, of which 1,267
responded to the survey (84.5%). In total, members of 111 work teams participated, as well
as 110 external team leaders. One team with missing performance data was removed from
our analyses, as mediated-moderation analyses are not robust to missing data (Edwards &
Lambert, 2007). Within-team response rates were all over 60%. This resulted in a final sample of 110 teams with 1,263 individuals. The mean age of respondents was 34 years (SD =
3.39) and 89% were male.

Measures
All items (see Appendix A) were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very inaccurate
and 7 = very accurate). In line with Chen, Mathieu, and Bliese (2004), alpha was computed
by taking the team mean of each item and then computing coefficient alpha.
Autonomy.Team members rated the autonomy of their work groups with four items
adapted from Oldham and Cummings (1996) and Patterson et al. (2005). A coefficient alpha
of .62 was obtained for the scale ratings.
Feedback. Team members rated the degree of performance feedback received by their
team via three items adapted from Patterson et al. (2005). A coefficient alpha of .82 was
obtained for the scale ratings.
Organizational goal clarity. Team members rated organizational goal clarity with four
items from Patterson et al. (2005). A coefficient alpha of .97 was obtained for the scale ratings.
Team performance. External team leaders rated team performance with a four-item scale
reflecting team goal achievement and effectiveness adapted from Zellmer-Bruhn and Gibson
(2006). A coefficient alpha of .85 was obtained for the scale ratings.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

8 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Control variables. We controlled for team size, average team tenure (i.e., the average
length of time team members had been together), and team task type (production, service,
or research and development teams) in our analyses. First, a larger team may receive more
feedback than a smaller team because the organization may assume that the larger team has
more difficulty in coordinating their efforts (e.g., Amason & Sapienza, 1997). Second, teams
that have worked together for longer periods of time may be trusted with more autonomy
and have greater organizational goal clarity than teams that have recently formed (e.g., Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). Finally, teams that engage in more complex tasks may also be
granted more autonomy or feedback, which might then make those teams outperform others
in the organization (Haas, 2010). Team task type was coded using two dummy variables
representing production teams and R&D teams, with service teams as the referent. Of the
110 teams in our sample, 54.5% were R&D teams, 24.5% were production teams, and the
remaining 21% were service teams.

Measurement Model
We performed confirmatory factor analyses to examine the factor structure of our autonomy, performance feedback, and organizational goal clarity scales. LISREL 8.80 was used to
evaluate the fit of the measurement model. We compared the expected three-factor model
with two plausible alternative nested models. First, we tested a single-factor model to determine whether respondents viewed all three constructs as the same, and results showed this
was a poor fit to the data, 2(44) = 190.8, CFI = .89, SRMR = .11. Because of the conceptual
link between organizational goal clarity and feedback noted in our theorizing, we also tested
a two-factor model with feedback and organizational goal clarity loading on a single latent
factor, 2(42) = 121.8, CFI = .94, SRMR = .09. Results revealed that the three-factor model
had the best fit to the data, 2(41) = 96, CFI = .96, SRMR = .08, and was a significantly better
fit than the two-factor model, 2(1) = 25.8, p < .01, confirming the expected underlying factor structure.

Aggregation of Individual Responses to the Group Level of Analysis

Because team member respondents were nested within groups, we computed mean rwg
(based on a uniform distribution) as an index of within-group agreement for relevant measures (LeBreton, James, & Lindell, 2005), ICC(1) as an index of within-group variability
compared to between-group variability, and ICC(2) as an index of the reliability of group
means (Bliese, 2000). The aggregation statistics are as follows: autonomy [rwg = .85;
ICC(1) = .08; ICC(2) = .50], performance feedback [rwg = .75; ICC(1) = .06; ICC(2) = .42],
and organizational goal clarity [rwg = .80; ICC(1) = .14; ICC(2) = .65]. The mean rwg values
were all above the recommended cutoff value of .70, indicating acceptable within-group
agreement. In addition, ICC(1)s were all in the acceptable ICC(1) range of .05 to .20 suggested by Bliese (2000), while the ICC(2) values indicated that differences among groups
can be reliably measured (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Therefore, we deemed that there was
sufficient within-group agreement and between-group variance to aggregate the team-level
variables.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

Gonzalez-Mul et al. / Channeled Autonomy 9

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variables
1. Task Type Dummy 1
2. Task Type Dummy 2
3. Team Size
4. Team Tenure
5. Autonomy
6. Feedback
7. Goal Clarity
8. Performance

SD

.05
.55
11.50
3.51
4.06
5.02
5.29
6.22

.23
.50
7.90
2.20
0.35
0.45
0.51
0.55

.26*
.23*
.35*
.08
.11
.13
.21*

.28*
.08
.16
.05
.23*
.20*

.36*
.02
.03
.06
.02

.08
.07
.13
.19*

.28*
.28*
.02

.72*
.28*

.23*

Note: n = 110 teams. Task Type Dummy 1 = production teams; Task Type Dummy 2 = R&D teams.
*p < .05.

Results
Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of our control and study
variables.

Analytic Technique
We tested our hypotheses using Edwards and Lamberts (2007) mediated-moderated
regression path analysis approach. We began by mean-centering all of our study variables
and covariates. Then, as shown in Equation 1 of Table 2, we regressed organizational goal
clarity on the control variables, autonomy, performance feedback, and the product term to
model the first-stage of our model, which represents a test of Hypothesis 1. In Equation 2,
we regressed team performance on the control variables, autonomy and organizational goal
clarity. This is used in conjunction with Equation 1 to estimate the second stage, direct, and
indirect effects. The second stage effect (e.g., organizational goal clarity performance)
represents a test of Hypothesis 2, while the difference between the indirect effects at high and
low levels of feedback as well as the significance of each simple slope represents a test of
Hypothesis 3.
Following these regression analyses, we used the SPSS macro provided by Edwards and
Lambert (2007) to bootstrap the coefficients with 1,000 samples. This allowed us to generate
standard errors that account for the nonnormal distribution of the indirect effects and subsequently calculate bias-corrected, bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for all the paths in
our model. In order to appropriately determine the nature of the mediated-moderated relationship between autonomy and performance, we calculated first-stage (autonomy organizational goal clarity), indirect (autonomy organizational goal clarity team
performance), and total effect (first-stage + indirect) path estimates at relatively high and low
levels of performance feedback (1 SD). Because our theoretical model hypothesized a firststage mediated-moderation model, we constrained the second-stage (organizational goal
clarity performance) and direct effect paths to be invariant across feedback levels (Edwards
& Lambert, 2007; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008).

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

10 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Table 2
Regression Equations Testing Mediated-Moderation Hypothesis

Variables
Task Type Dummy 1
Task Type Dummy 2
Size
Tenure
Autonomy
Performance Feedback
Organizational Goal Clarity
Autonomy Feedback
R / R2
R2

Equation 1

Equation 2

DV: Organizational Goal Clarity

DV: Performance

.05 (.16)
.22* (.07)
.00 (.22)
.01 (.02)
.20* (.10)
.74* (.08)

.28 (.25)
.09 (.12)
.00 (.01)
.03 (.03)
.06 (.16)

.27* (.11)

.37* / .14

.47* (.22)
.74* / .55
.02*

Note: n = 110 teams. All regression coefficients are unstandardized. R2 represents the incremental validity
accounted for in organizational goal clarity by the Autonomy Feedback interaction. Standard errors are reported
in parentheses.
*p < .05.

Table 3
Simple Effects of Autonomy on Performance at High and Low Levels of Feedback
Path
Low feedback (1 SD)
High feedback (+1 SD)
Difference

First Stagea

Second Stageb

Directc

Indirectd

Total

.02 (.34, .21)

.40* (.11, .73)
.42* (.11, .89)

.27* (.05, .49)

.27* (.05, .49)
.00

.06 (.38, .23)

.06 (.38, .23)
.00

.01 (.12, .06)

.11* (.02, .29)
.11* (.02, .38)

.07 (.42, .23)

.05 (.23, .35)
.11* (.02, .38)

Note: n = 110 teams. Bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals are reported in parentheses. *95% CI does not include
zero.
a.Autonomy Organizational Goal Clarity.
b.Organizational Goal Clarity Performance.
c.Autonomy Performance.
d.Autonomy Organizational Goal Clarity Performance.

Tests of Hypotheses
Results of our analyses revealed that although autonomy had a weak, negative relationship with organizational goal clarity when feedback was low (p = .02, 95% CI: .34, .21),
autonomy exhibited a strong, positive relationship with organizational goal clarity when
feedback was high (p = .40, 95% CI: .11, .89). The difference between these relationships (at
higher vs. lower levels of feedback) was significant (d = .42, 95% CI: .11, .89). These results,
which are shown in the first column of data in Table 3, provided support for Hypothesis 1.
Table 3 likewise shows that there was a significant second-stage relationship between organizational goal clarity and team performance (p = .27, 95% CI: .05, .49), thus providing support for Hypothesis 2.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

Gonzalez-Mul et al. / Channeled Autonomy 11

Figure 2
Moderated Indirect Effects of Team Autonomy on Team Performance (via
Organizational Goal Clarity) at High and Low Levels of Feedback

Team Performance

6.5
6.4
6.3
High Feedback
Low Feedback

6.2
6.1
6

Low
High
Indirect Effect of Autonomy

In terms of testing our hypothesized conditional indirect effects model (Hypothesis 3), we
found, as shown in the fourth column of Table 3, that at lower levels of feedback the indirect
relationship between autonomy and performance via organizational goal clarity was negative, though weak (p = .01, 95% CI: .12, .06). Conversely, at higher levels of feedback, the
indirect effect was positive and significant (p = .11, 95% CI: .02, .29). Furthermore, the difference between the indirect effects across higher and lower levels of feedback was significant (d = .12, 95% CI: .02, .38). Figure 2 provides a graphical depiction of these contingent
indirect effects (scaled to our 7-point performance scale) and confirms Hypothesis 3 in that
the indirect relationship between autonomy and performance was strong and positive for
teams high in feedback through the mediating effects of organizational goal clarity. Although
this indirect relationship was nonsignificant (though negative, as hypothesized) for teams
low in feedback, the difference in the magnitude of the relationships between autonomy and
performance through organizational goal clarity at higher versus lower feedback levels was
significant.

Discussion
Large variability in the autonomyteam performance relationship, coupled with a lack of
theoretical guidance regarding moderators of this relationship, have left scholars and practitioners with few clues on how to leverage the potential benefits of team autonomy. To
address these issues, we hypothesized an interaction between autonomy and feedback such
that teams benefit most when they receive high levels of autonomy while also receiving
higher levels of performance feedback. We found support for this interaction being associated with higher team performance because it allows teams to gain a clearer sense of the
organizations goals.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

12 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Implications for Theory and Research

Our study extends theory and research on team autonomy and team design in several
ways. First, we extend recent research (e.g., Wallace et al., 2011) that has identified contingencies of team autonomy. In particular, we found support for the moderating effect of performance feedback on the relationship between team autonomy and organizational goal
clarity, and ultimately team performance. This result contributes to the team design literature,
as most theoretical frameworks consider only the additive effects of autonomy and feedback
(e.g., Campion et al., 1993). Moreover, Stewart et al. (2011) noted the need for identifying
moderators of the autonomy-performance relationship because autonomy does not appear
to be universally beneficial at the team level. Researchers should thus continue to focus
on contextual factors that link performance with team-level self-leadership [autonomy] (p.
213). Other scholars (e.g., Sundstrom et al., 1990) have also called for studying team design
features through a contingency lens (Donaldson, 2001). Our study answers these calls by
identifying performance feedback as a moderator of team autonomy.
Second, we found support for the notion that the interaction between autonomy and feedback is mediated by organizational goal clarity. To our knowledge, few studies have examined the relationship of organizational goal clarity with team performance, let alone
considered its role as a mediator of team design characteristics. This is surprising, given that
one of the basic assertions of goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2013) is that clear,
specific, challenging goals are more effective than unclear goals. Our findings showed that
providing both autonomy and feedback is related to high levels of organizational goal clarity,
while withholding feedback from autonomous teams may cause them to enter a state of disorder. By identifying organizational goal clarity as a key mediator of the autonomy-feedback
interaction, our study builds on recent research that has explored similar interactions (Wallace
et al., 2011) by demonstrating the mechanism by which autonomy and mechanisms meant to
bring order to autonomous teams influence team performance.
Third, we contribute to team-level feedback research by showing how feedback is critical
for teams to understand the goals of the organization and for channeling team efforts towards
high team performance. Feedback is most often studied as an individual-level work design
characteristic rather than a team-level design characteristic (DeShon et al., 2004; Hackman
& Oldham, 1976). Our study highlights the value of future studies on the subject of team
feedback.

Practical Implications
We suggest that coupling high autonomy with ample performance feedback has benefits
for both team members and organizations. First, autonomy allows teams to retain control
over the how of work and thus experience the motivational benefits related to high autonomy. At the same time, providing feedback allows teams to avoid ambiguity by understanding where they should direct their teams efforts. Second, designing teams with high autonomy
and feedback allows organizations to take advantage of the increased flexibility of autonomous teams while being enabled to direct those teams toward goals congruent with the organizations needs. Our results also suggest performance feedback does not rob teams of
autonomy or undermine its effectiveness; rather, feedback leverages the benefits of autonomy by clarifying organizational goals and thus giving teams a context in which to plan and
direct their performance.
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

Gonzalez-Mul et al. / Channeled Autonomy 13

Limitations and Future Directions

As with any study, our study has several limitations. First, our performance feedback measure does not measure the source or valence of the feedback received. While this is common in
team feedback research (e.g., Campion et al., 1993; DeShon et al., 2004), future research could
delineate how teams react to different forms and sources of feedback. For example, is negative
feedback just as likely to clarify organizational goals as positive feedback? Does feedback
affect organizational goal clarity and performance differently when it comes from supervisors,
customers, or objective indicators? Second, our sample was teams from South Korea. Thus,
cultural differences are a potential boundary condition of our model because some research
shows that cultural conditioning affects reactions to the valence of feedback (Kirkman, Lowe,
& Gibson, 2006; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Investigating potential cultural differences in reactions to feedback type thus represents an avenue of future research on channeled autonomy.
Third, an implicit aspect of our theorizing is that organizational goal clarity should align team
goals with organizational goals. We did not, however, measure information regarding the actual
content or congruence of team or organization goals. Future research should address this limitation by determining what relationship feedback and autonomy have with team-organization
goal congruence. Fourth, our coefficient alpha for autonomy was below the recommended
conventional cutoff value of .70. Although scholars have argued that slightly less reliable scales
can still be acceptable (Schmitt, 1996), the low reliability may have attenuated relationships
between autonomy and other variables. Fifth, our independent variable, moderator, and mediator were all measured at one point in time and were perceptual measures of team structure. We
thus encourage the use of longitudinal designs and measurement of objective team structural
characteristics to investigate the relationships examined in our study. Finally, the variance on
our independent variables was rather low, which could attenuate relationships between variables (Schmidt, Shaffer, & Oh, 2008). On a related note, the mean level of feedback all teams
reported receiving was relatively high, meaning that the levels of high and low can only be
interpreted relative to the organizational context. Future research could address this limitation
by employing experimental designs that maximize variance on feedback.

Appendix A
Scale Items Used
Decision-Making Autonomy (adapted from Patterson et al., 2005)
1. My supervisor leaves it up to our team to decide how to go about our job.
2. Management trusts our team to make work-related decisions without getting permission first.
3. In our team, its important to check things first with the team leader before making a decision
(R).
4. Our team leaders keep too tight a reign on the way things are done in the team (R).

Performance Feedback (adapted from Patterson et al., 2005)

1.
2.
3.

The way our team does our job is rarely assessed (R).
Our team usually receives feedback on the quality of work we have done.
Our team members dont have any idea how well we are doing our job (R).

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

14 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Organizational Goal Clarity (adapted from Patterson et al., 2005)

1.
2.
3.
4.

Our team members have a good understanding of what our organization is trying to do.
The future direction of the organization is clearly communicated to our team members.
Our team members are well aware of the long-term plans and direction of the organization.
There is a strong sense of where the organization is going among the team members.

Team Performance (adapted from Kearney & Gebert, 2009 and Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson,
2006)
1.
2.
3.
4.

This team achieves its goals.

This team achieves high performance.
This team makes a great contribution to the company.
This team is very successful in terms of overall achievement.

Note
1. Feedback is distinct from related constructs such as accountability and directiveness. Accountability is the
expectation that ones behavior will be evaluated by an actor with the possibility to receive either rewards or sanctions as a result of the evaluation (Hall et al., 2003; Wallace et al., 2011). In other words, accountability represents
the expectation of being evaluated, while performance feedback represents the actual receipt of an evaluation.
Similarly, directiveness is a leadership style that provides team members with a framework for decision making and
action in alignment with the leaders vision, such as setting rules for individuals to follow (Somech, 2006). Although
directiveness includes the provision of feedback, the constructs differ because feedback is an evaluation of a teams
outcomes as opposed to a leaders specification of subordinates work processes.

References
Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. 1997. The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive
and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23: 495-516.
Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation
and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349-381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 1, 389-444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
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: 823-847.
Carnall, C. A. 1982. Semi-autonomous work groups and the social structure of the organization. Journal of
Management Studies, 19: 277-294.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. 2006. Towards a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 27: 223-276.
Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. 2004. A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. J.
Dansereau & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: The many faces of multi-level issues: Vol.
3, 273-303. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design.
Management Science, 32: 554-571.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W., Schmidt, A. M., & Milner, K. R. 2004. A multiple-goal, multilevel model of
feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89:
1035-1056.
Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical
framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12: 1-22.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

Gonzalez-Mul et al. / Channeled Autonomy 15

Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 484-503.
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. 2006. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive
behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27:
1089-1120.
Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability.
Academy of Management Review, 17: 183-211.
Haas, M. R. 2010. The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: Analyzing team effectiveness in
a multinational organization. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 989-1008.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. 2003. Accountability
in human resources management. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. Neider (Eds.), New directions in human resource
management: 29-63. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. 2012. Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling
conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37: 82-106.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. 2011. Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and
process clarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 851-862.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output
models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 517-543.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. 1985. A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and
role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36: 16-78.
Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. 1997. Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy,
interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50: 877-904.
Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. 2000. Strategies of effective new product team leaders. California Management
Review, 42: 34-51.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. 1964. Occupational stress: Studies in role
conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. 1966. Organizations and systems concepts. In D. Katz & R. Kahn (Eds.), The social psychology of organizations: 14-29. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. 2009. Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 77-89.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K., & Gibson, C. B. 2006. A quarter century of cultures consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstedes cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies,
37: 285-320.
Klein, H. J. 1991. Further evidence on the relationship between goal setting and expectancy theories. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49: 230-257.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a
meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 254-284.
Langfred, C. W. 2005. Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31: 513-529.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
LeBreton, J. M., James, L. R., & Lindell, M. K. 2005. Recent issues regarding rWG, r*WG, rWG(j), r*WG(j).
Organizational Research Methods, 8: 128-138.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement.
Organizational Research Methods, 11: 815-852.
Locke, E. A. 1991. The motivation sequence, the motivation hub and the motivation core. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50: 288-299.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (Eds.). 2013. New developments in goal setting and task performance. New York:
Routledge.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015

16 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

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.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a
comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91:
1321-1339.
Nadler, D. A. 1979. The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A review of experimental research.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23: 309-338.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 39: 607-634.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D. L., &
Wallace, A. M. 2005. Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 379-408.
Sawyer, J. E. 1992. Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural
equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 130-142.
Schmidt, F. L., Shaffer, J. A., & Oh, I. S. 2008. Increased accuracy for range restriction corrections: Implications
for the role of personality and general mental ability in job and training performance. Personnel Psychology,
61: 827-868.
Schmitt, N. 1996. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8: 350-353.
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: 981-1003.
Somech, A. 2006. The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally
heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32: 132-157.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.
Stewart, G. L. 2006. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance.
Journal of Management, 32: 29-55.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam
process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 135-148.
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. 2011. Self-leadership: A multilevel review. Journal of Management,
37: 185-222.
Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. 1990. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American
Psychologist, 45: 120-133.
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. 2008. Abusive supervision and subordinates organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 721-732.
Thompson, L. 1999. Making the team: A guide for managers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. 2011. Structural and psychological empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt accountability: A managerial perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96: 840-850.
Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Dixon, G. R. 1994. Inside teams: How 20 world-class organizations are winning
through teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. 2006. Multinational organization context: Implications for team learning and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 501-518.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on July 1, 2015