The Curvilinear Relationship Between Empowering Leadership and Team Performance: A Self-Regulatory Perspective

Empowering Leadership and Team Performance: A Curvilinear Relationship

Empowering leadership is defined as leader behavior directed at individuals or teams that involves emphasizing the meaningfulness of work, increasing followers’ participation in decision-making, expressing confidence in followers’ high performance, and providing autonomy (A. Lee et al., 2017). At the team level, empowering leadership plays a crucial role in fostering effective teamwork and facilitating collaborative decision-making (X. Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Prior research showed that empowering leadership in teams involves behaviors like encouraging the team to set goals, granting autonomy in task management, and involving team members in decisions that affect them (Biemann et al., 2015; Fong & Snape, 2013). Team-level empowering leadership emphasizes actions undertaken by leaders to enhance the empowerment of the entire team as a collective entity, rather than focusing solely on individual team members (Biemann et al., 2015; Rousseau & Aubé, 2019). Empowering leadership at the team level is expected to positively influence team members’ task effort and persistence and to enhance both the quality and quantity of team performance (Chen et al., 2019; Chuang et al., 2013). Team performance refers to the extent to which a team can meet or exceed its goals in a timely and efficient manner (Bradley et al., 2012; Kirkman et al., 2010). First, by prioritizing the collective team and empowering team members, empowering leadership has been shown to drive team effectiveness and cultivate a collaborative and high-performing work environment (Magni & Maruping, 2013), and in turn, enhance team performance. Second, empowering leadership eliminates barriers to team performance within teams (Amoroso et al., 2021). Valuable resources that could significantly contribute to team performance, such as status, support, information, and autonomy (Amoroso et al., 2021), are more likely to be granted greater access to members in empowered teams. Third, empowering leaders demonstrate trust in their team members and present confidence in their abilities (Srivastava et al., 2006). By granting autonomy and decision-making authority, team members develop a sense of ownership and responsibility for their work within the team (Lorinkova et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2020). This increased autonomy and trust foster a higher level of engagement, productivity, and ultimately team performance. Team members empowered with decision-making authority can also swiftly and effectively respond to challenges in real time (Zhu & Chen, 2015), adapting to changing circumstances, seizing opportunities, and navigating uncertainties, all of which contribute to improved team performance.

Until now, we have argued that empowering leadership is likely to enhance team performance. However, despite the initial indication of a positive relationship, the TMGT effect perspective posits a non-linear nature (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). The TMGT effect contends that an excess of a positive factor may result in additional resource consumption and, unexpectedly, lead to negative outcomes. This perspective can be applied to the relationship between empowering leadership and team performance. Previous research shows that too much empowerment might provide team members with autonomy by delegating power and control to them, which may elicit a loss of efficiency due to a lack of regulation (Dennerlein & Kirkman, 2022). Therefore, there’s a reason to predict that, while moderate levels of empowering leadership may increase team performance, as leaders progressively show more empowerment, this positive impact on team performance may reach an inflection point after which the impact of empowering leadership becomes negative, reflecting an inverted-U shape.

Specifically, a high level of empowerment involves providing team members with autonomy by delegating power and control to them (Biemann et al., 2015). However, without regular monitoring and feedback mechanisms in place, it can be challenging for leaders to evaluate the progress, quality, and alignment of the team’s work (Dennerlein & Kirkman, 2022). A lack of surveillance and feedback can lead to unnoticed errors, deviations from goals, missing opportunities for improvement, and ultimately undermined team performance (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015; Wang et al., 2022). For instance, when leaders exhibit excessive empowerment behaviors, such as assigning additional tasks, expecting independent problem-solving without specific guidance, and setting extremely high-performance goals, it is often interpreted as laissez-faire or signals that the task is unimportant with little meaning (A. Lee et al., 2017). Under such conditions, team members may become reluctant to exert effort and consequently undermine team performance (Humborstad et al., 2014). Additionally, too much empowerment implies a demand for team members to take on additional tasks or responsibilities and make decisions beyond their abilities and duties (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). Team members may struggle to coordinate their efforts, prioritize tasks, or understand the overall objectives, which can result in diminished team performance. Further, while empowering leadership encourages autonomy and decision-making power, there is a possibility that team members may misuse or even abuse their autonomy (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015; Wang et al., 2022). Under a high level of empowerment, team members may prioritize their interests over team goals. Without appropriate checks and balances, a high level of empowerment can lead to suboptimal decisions or breakdowns in collaboration, negatively impacting team performance. Finally, despite autonomy being an essential aspect of empowering leadership, too much emphasis on independence can result in a lack of accountability (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015; Wang et al., 2022). If team members feel little sense of responsibility toward their work or perceive their actions with little consequences, it can lead to a decline in performance and productivity.

In sum, we have argued that empowering leadership has a positive impact on team performance before reaching a certain level. Once empowering leadership exceeds a certain threshold, team performance begins to decline. Therefore, we hypothesized:

The Mediating Role of Team Reflexivity

Next, we drew on the team self-regulatory perspective to identify team reflexivity as the meditating mechanism in the curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and team performance. The self-regulatory perspective provides a psychological framework focusing on how individuals monitor and control their behaviors (Bandura, 1991). By monitoring their actions, individuals can gain insight into their progress, identify areas for improvement, and make necessary adjustments to stay on track toward their goals (Bandura, 1991). At the team level, the team self-regulatory perspective builds upon the individual self-regulatory perspective and extends it to the context of teams and groups (Kozlowski et al., 1996; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). It focuses on how teams collectively regulate their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors to achieve shared goals and effectively function as a cohesive unit (Rapp et al., 2014). The team self-regulatory perspective argues that teams are viewed as dynamic systems that engage in self-regulatory processes to monitor, control, and adapt their actions (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). These processes involve the coordination and integration of team members’ efforts, as well as the management of team-level resources and challenges. In addition, the team self-regulatory perspective recognizes the influence of leadership on team functioning (Rapp et al., 2014). Leaders can either facilitate or hinder team self-regulation (Lyubovnikova et al., 2015). Team reflexivity refers to the extent to which team members overtly reflect upon and communicate about the team’s objectives, strategies, and processes (West, 2000). Identified during the stage of reflection, reflexivity essentially involves self-regulation and adaptation, pertinent to achieving the desired changes in team objectives, strategies, processes, organizations, or environments (Leblanc et al., 2022). Therefore, we theorized team reflexivity as a typical team self-regulation process, a crucial influence mechanism in the curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and team performance.

By guiding along with providing support, empowering leadership plays a crucial role in promoting self-regulatory processes and facilitating positive team outcomes (Srivastava et al., 2006; Tang et al., 2020). Fostered by empowering leadership, well-established team norms and open communication channels enable effective coordination and exchange of feedback among team members (Hill & Bartol, 2016). Specifically, empowering leadership promotes open communication channels, active listening, and universal respect for diverse perspectives, fostering team members’ ability to share information, exchange feedback, and engage in constructive discussions (Biemann et al., 2015), ultimately enhancing team reflexivity. Empowering leadership also grants autonomy and decision-making power to team members, which allows team members to have a sense of ownership over their work and the autonomy to make decisions within their areas of responsibility (Fausing et al., 2015). With increased autonomy, team members are more likely to engage in critical reflection on their teamwork, assess its effectiveness, and suggest improvements (Hedman-Phillips & Barge, 2016). Therefore, a moderate level of empowering leadership is essential to providing the necessary conditions and support that foster team reflexivity.

However, the team self-regulation process will be weakened as the level of empowerment increases. Specifically, high-level empowerment entails providing employees with full decision-making authority (Dennerlein & Kirkman, 2022). Excessive empowerment may lead to a lack of shared goals and direction within teams (Biemann et al., 2015; A. Lee et al., 2017). In such cases, team members may pursue individual agendas or divergent objectives rather than collectively reflecting on and adapting their goals, strategies, and processes (Konradt et al., 2015; Schippers et al., 2014). Without sufficient guidance or resources from their leaders and a common purpose, team reflexivity may diminish with little cohesive framework for critical evaluation and adjustment (Müller et al., 2008). In addition, excessive autonomy among team members poses a risk of individualistic behavior and a lack of coordination in decision-making and action. Without effective collaboration or coordination, team members may hardly engage in collective reflection, which is necessary for team reflexivity (Lyubovnikova et al., 2015).

Thus, we propose that empowering leadership within a certain level will increase team reflexivity. However, when empowering leadership exceeds a certain degree (inflection point), team reflexivity begins to decline. Therefore, we hypothesized:

As discussed before, it was assumed that empowering leadership has inverted U-shaped effects on both team reflexivity and team performance. Team reflexivity was further expected to positively impact team performance and play a mediating role in the curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and team performance.

First, team reflexivity promotes open discussions and the sharing of diverse perspectives within teams. This exchange of information and learning environment leads to a deeper understanding of the task at hand, innovative approaches to problem-solving, and ultimately improvements in team performance (Schippers et al., 2012; Tesler et al., 2017). Second, members in a high-level reflexivity team tend to systematically reflect on team tasks, strategies, and procedures, and to develop a clear course of action for achieving objectives thereafter (Maruping et al., 2015; Y. Shin, 2014). This iterative process of reflection and adjustment helps teams make more informed decisions, solve problems effectively, and optimize their performance. Finally, a high level of team reflexivity usually cultivates an excellent ability for self-regulation, encouraging team members to identify the opportunities and threats in environments (e.g., technology and product innovation, changes in the markets, and actions of competitors; Li et al., 2021). Adapting to environmental changes, team members contribute to optimizing the team strategies based on their assessments of strengths and weaknesses (Schippers et al., 2015). Thus, team reflexivity enables teams to be more adaptable and resilient in the face of challenges and changes, which has a positive impact on team performance (Lyubovnikova et al., 2015).

Overall, considering both H1 and H2, when empowerment moves from low to moderate levels, empowering leadership can improve team performance by enhancing team reflexivity. However, when empowering leadership moves beyond a certain degree (inflection point), empowering leadership will undermine team performance by weakening team reflexivity. Thus, we hypnotized:

The Moderating Role of Team Performance-Approach Goal Orientation

Team performance-approach goal orientation reflects the collective focus of the entire team on its competence and external evaluation. This is characterized by a shared understanding of the team’s emphasis on achieving favorable evaluations and outperforming other teams (Vandewalle et al., 2019). Team performance-approach goal orientation involves team members collectively striving for excellence, success, and outperforming their competitors or previous performance levels (Gong et al., 2013). Under this orientation, the team is motivated by the desire to outperform others and attain favorable results rather than solely avoiding failure or meeting minimum requirements (Vandewalle et al., 2019). Therefore, drawing on the team self-regulatory perspective, team performance goal orientation can be theorized as a team self-regulation mechanism, which plays a moderating role in the process of empowering leadership and affecting team results.

Members of teams with a high performance-approach orientation are willing to take risks, set ambitious targets, seek opportunities for growth and improvement, and embrace challenges (Van Mierlo & Van Hooft, 2020). Compared to members of teams with a low performance-approach orientation, members of teams with a high performance-approach orientation are more motivated to achieve positive external evaluations and are more likely to contribute their abilities and values through hard work (Nederveen et al., 2011). Moreover, they recognize that synergistic cooperation can lead to greater achievements (Dietz et al., 2015), so they treat effective teamwork, cooperation, and mutual support as essential elements for achieving exceptional performance (J. Zhang et al., 2018). Therefore, in such teams, empowering leadership is likely to be more effective in fostering collaboration, cooperation, and healthy competition among team members.

On the contrary, members of teams with a low performance-approach orientation barely focus on the improvement of performance and exhibit limited collaboration. The lack of a shared drive for exceptional performance can result in a diminished sense of teamwork and cooperation (Dietz et al., 2015; Gong et al., 2013). Without a collective focus on high performance, team members may be more inclined to work individually rather than collaboratively (J. Zhang et al., 2018). Therefore, in such teams, empowering leadership is likely to be less effective in encouraging collaboration, cooperation, and healthy competition among team members.

Overall, we proposed that team performance-approach orientation shapes the boundary conditions that determine how team members reflect on their goals and tasks, adjust their behaviors, and influence their performance under leader empowerment. Specifically, the positive side of empowering leadership is strengthened, and the negative side is weakened in higher performance-approach orientation teams, whereas the positive side of empowering leadership is weakened, and the negative side is strengthened in lower performance-approach orientation teams. Thus, we hypothesized:

We have proposed that empowering leadership has inverted U-shaped effects on team performance (H1) via its inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationship with team reflexivity (H2), suggesting a curvilinear indirect relationship between empowering leadership and team performance via team reflexivity (H3); and at lower/higher levels of empowering leadership, the positive/negative relationship between empowering leadership and team reflexivity is stronger/weaker for teams of higher performance-approach goal orientation, compared to lower performance-approach goal orientation teams (H4). Considering H1 to H4 collectively, we propose that the indirect link between empowering leadership and team performance is contingent on team performance-approach goal orientation. Team performance-approach goal orientation has a moderating influence on the relationship between empowering leadership and team reflexivity, and it has the potential to influence the curvilinear indirect relationship between empowering leadership and team performance.

Figure 1 shows the theoretical model.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Theoretical model.

Sample and Procedures

Data through online questionnaires from six firms operating in the Internet and E-commerce industries in China was collected. Employees and their immediate supervisors were selected as participants. The samples were selected based on the following criteria. First, team leaders designated in each team were responsible for guiding team members to achieve the team’s goals. It is important to note that each team leader was exclusively responsible for overseeing one team. Second, exhibiting task interdependence, members within selected teams worked in a mutually dependent manner and coordinated with others to accomplish the common goals of the team. Third, to enhance the representativeness of the sample, we deliberately selected teams from six different firms to include a diverse range of organizations.

To reduce the impact of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we employed a multi-time and multi-source research design. At Time 1, team members rated their leaders’ empowering leadership style, team performance-approach goal orientation, and team reflexivity. They also provided information on their demographic characteristics. Two months later, at Time 2, members evaluated their team reflexivity again, while leaders provided information on team performance and their demographic characteristics.

With the help of human resource management, we obtained access to collect team members’ email addresses and membership information. We matched members with their leaders and sent emails to participants to explain the purpose of the survey, confirm their voluntary participation, and ensure data confidentiality. At Time 1, a link to the survey was distributed through email to 966 members from 192 teams. 850 members from 171 teams completed the Time 1 survey (response rate = 88.0%). A link to the Time 2 survey was sent to the 850 team members who completed the Time 1 survey and their 171 immediate leaders. A total of 720 team members (response rate = 84.7%) and 158 leaders (response rate = 92.4%) completed the Time 2 survey. After excluding seven teams for incomplete leader and team member responses, the sample included 151 teams, consisting of 641 team members with a response rate of 64.4%, and 151 team leaders with a response rate of 78.7%.

Considering the lagged effect between the reflective process and a subsequent change in team performance, as well as the linear mediation chain between team reflexivity and team performance, we adapted reflexivity from Time 1 rather than Time 2 as the mediator in the subsequence analysis. Consequently, we removed an additional 14 teams that didn’t report team reflexivity at T1. The final sample consisted of 137 teams, comprising 580 team members with a response rate of 60.0%, and 137 team leaders with a response rate of 71.4%.

Among the leaders, 65.7% were male, with an average age of 37.9 years old (SD = 8.4), and 51.8% had a bachelor’s degree or above. Among team members, 56.3% were male, with an average age of 32.3 years old (SD = 7.6), and 51.0% of them had a bachelor’s degree or above. The average team size was 6.6 (SD = 4.4).

Measures

All survey items (see Appendix) were translated from English to Chinese by the researchers for data collection, with participants being native Chinese speakers. We back translated all survey items following Brislin’s (1986) procedure to guarantee content accuracy and validity. All variables were measured on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).

Construct Validity

We examined the hypothesized measurement model with four factors—namely, empowering leadership, team reflexivity, team performance, and team performance-approach goal orientation. Results of our confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed the four-factor model (M₁, χ²₍₃₃₂₎ = 571.60, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.07, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93) with items loaded on their respective factors fit the data well. We also estimated two alternative models, including a two-factor model (M₂, χ²₍₃₃₇₎ = 1,654.97, RMSEA = 0.17, SRMR = 0.18, CFI = 0.66, TLI = 0.62; ∆χ²_{(∆df = 5)} = 1,083.37, p < .00) in which empowering leadership, team reflexivity, and team performance-approach goal orientation were set to load on a single factor; and a single-factor model (M₃, χ²₍₃₃₈₎ = 1,718.02, RMSEA = 0.17, SRMR = 0.21, CFI = 0.65, TLI = 0.60; ∆χ²_{(∆df = 6)} = 1,146.42, p < .00) with all items loaded on one factor. Results showed that M₁ is better than the alternative models according to fit indices. Further, results of an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) testing showed that all the AVE values are higher than .50 (Table 1), as recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981) for reliability and convergent validity. In addition, the square root of each variable’s AVE is larger than the correlation between factors in the CFA. These results support the discriminant validity of the research variables.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (n = 137).

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Team size	6.56	4.35
2. Team age diversity	0.16	0.09	.15
3. Team gender diversity	0.29	0.19	−.07	.07
4. Team educational diversity	0.36	0.21	.14	.39**	−.07
5. Transformational leadership	3.16	0.65	.07	.29**	.03	.05
6. Team temporal reflexivity	4.42	0.72	.09	−.04	.08	−.07	.05
7. Empowering leadership	4.27	0.67	−.13	−.06	.08	−.03	.21*	.21**	(.63)
8. Team reflexivity	3.30	0.95	.08	−.11	−.05	.08	.29**	.26**	.34**	(.77)
9. Team performance-approach goal orientation	4.36	0.83	−.15	−.50**	.09	−.24*	−.26**	.23**	.15	.29**	(.75)
10. Team performance	4.30	0.76	−.03	−.15	−.00	−.03	.30**	.21**	.44	.46**	.18*	(.60)

Note. The values of Average Variance Extracted are in the parentheses along the diagonal.

*

p < .05. **p < .01.

Descriptive Results

Table 1 summarizes the results of descriptive statistics, correlations, and scale reliabilities for all variables.

Testing the Mediation Relationship

We proposed that empowering leadership has a curvilinear relationship with team performance (H1) and team reflexivity (H2). Results of our analysis showed that the coefficient of the quadratic term of empowering leadership was significantly and negatively related to team performance, γ  = −.27, s.e. = 0.06, p < .001 (Model 5 in Table 2), indicating an inverted U-shaped relationship between empowering leadership and team performance (Figure 2). The turning point of curvilinear is at - γ ₁/2 γ ₂ = .17, with the 95% confidence interval indicating that the turning point is within the data range, ¹ [−0.16, 0.48] ∈ [−2.98, 1.37] (Haans et al., 2015). This result shows that empowering leadership can promote team performance before the value of empowering leadership centralization reaches 0.17. Once the value exceeds 0.17, the effect of empowering leadership on team performance begins to turn negative. Thus, H1 was supported.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Results of Regression Analysis (n = 137).

Variables	Team reflexivity (T1)				Team performance (T2)
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Controls
Team size	0.01 (0.02)	0.01 (0.02)	0.01 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.02)
Team age diversity	−2.64** (0.68)	−2.50*** (0.51)	−0.31 (0.84)	−2.05*** (0.49)	−1.93*** (0.25)	−1.42*** (0.66)
Team gender diversity	−0.22 (0.54)	−0.39 (0.55)	−0.55 (0.49)	−0.05 (0.33)	−0.16 (0.37)	−0.09 (0.37)
Team educational diversity	0.78** (0.23)	0.58* (0.27)	0.56* (0.25)	0.27 † (0.15)	0.16 (0.18)	0.03 (0.23)
Transformational leadership (T1)	0.47** (0.14)	0.16 (0.17)	0.12 (0.17)	0.42*** (0.04)	0.15 † (0.08)	0.10 (0.08)
Team temporal reflexivity (T1)	0.31** (0.12)	0.13 (0.11)	−0.02 (0.10)	0.20 (0.13)	0.09 (0.09)	0.04 (0.08)
Independent variables
Empowering leadership (T1)		0.12 (0.20)	−0.29 (0.23)		0.09 (0.08)	0.06 (0.08)
Empowering leadership2		−0.23*** (0.07)	−0.77*** (0.13)		−0.27*** (0.06)	−0.23*** (0.06)
Mediator
Team reflexivity (T1)						0.20 † (0.12)
Moderators
Team performance-approach goal orientation (T1)			0.42** (0.12)
Interactions
EL × TPPGO			0.48** (0.15)
EL2 × TPPGO			0.48*** (0.09)
Pseudo-R 2	.20	.26	.39	.19	.34	.39

Note. To account for potential nested effects, firms (n = 6) were treated as a firm-level cluster factor in our multi-level analyses. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; EL = empowering leadership; TPPGO = team performance-approach goal orientation.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and team performance.

Results also showed the coefficient of the quadratic term of empowering leadership was significantly and negatively related to team reflexivity, γ  = −.23, s.e. = 0.07, p < .001 (Model 2 in Table 2), consistent with the anticipated inverted U-shaped relationship (Figure 3). The turning point of the curvilinear relationship occurs at −γ1/2γ2 = .26, with the 95% confidence interval indicating that the turning point is within the data range [−0.70, 1.22] ∈ [−2.98, 1.37] (Haans et al., 2015). This result indicates that empowering leadership promotes team reflexivity when the value of empowering leadership centralization is below 0.26. Once this value exceeds 0.26, the effect of empowering leadership on team reflexivity begins to turn negative. Thus, H2 was supported.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

The curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and team reflexivity.

Figure 2 shows that when empowering leadership increased, team performance also increased. However, once empowering leadership reached a certain level, team performance peaked and then declined as empowering leadership increased further. Similarly, Figure 3 also indicates that there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between empowering leadership and team reflexivity. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were further supported.

Hypothesis 3 posited that team reflexivity mediates the curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and team performance. We followed R. Zhang et al.’s (2021) guidelines to test the indirect effect. The instantaneous indirect effects were calculated based on the coefficients and standard errors associated with paths a (the first stage) and b (the second stage) in the mediated relationships. Results showed that the instantaneous indirect curvilinear effect of empowering leadership on team performance via team reflexivity was positive and significant at the low level of empowering leadership (Indirect effect = 0.06, 95% CI [0.01, 0.15]), but it became nonsignificant at the mean level of empowering leadership (Indirect effect = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.13, 0.03]). Finally, it became negative and significant at the high level of empowering leadership (Indirect effect = −0.12, 95% CI [−0.34, −0.01]). Thus, in teams with low levels of empowering leadership, an increase in empowering leadership is associated with an increase in team performance, and this influence is mediated through team reflexivity. In contrast, in teams with high levels of empowering leadership, an increase in empowering leadership is associated with a decrease in team performance, with this effect mediated by team reflexivity. These results showed that team reflexivity mediates the curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and team performance, supporting H3.

Testing the Moderation Relationship

Hypothesis 4 posited that team performance-approach goal orientation moderates the inverted U-shaped relationship between empowering leadership and team reflexivity. Results showed that the interaction between the quadratic term of the empowering leadership and team performance-approach goal orientation was significantly related to team reflexivity, γ  = .48, s.e. = 0.09, p < .001 (Model 3 in Table 2). Figure 4 shows that, at the relatively low level of empowering leadership (1 SD below the mean), the positive relationship was stronger for teams with higher levels of performance-approach goal orientation compared to those with lower levels. At the relatively high level of empowering leadership (1 SD above the mean), the negative relationship was weaker in teams with higher levels of performance-approach goal orientation compared to those with lower levels. Thus, H4 was supported.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

The moderating effect of team performance-approach goal orientation on the relationship between empowering leadership and team reflexivity.

Finally, Hypothesis 5 proposed that the indirect curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and team performance through team reflexivity would be contingent upon team performance-approach goal orientation. Results showed that the level of team performance-approach goal orientation influenced the indirect curvilinear effects of team reflexivity on the relationship between empowering leadership and team performance. The influence of high-level team performance-approach goal orientation was weaker than low-level team performance-approach goal orientation when empowering leadership was low (Difference of indirect effects between high vs. low team performance-approach goal orientation = −0.07, 95% CI [−0.20, 0.01], ns). However, the influence of high-level team performance-approach goal orientation became increasingly stronger than low-level team performance-approach goal orientation when the level of empowering leadership was moderate (Difference of indirect effects between high vs. low team performance-approach goal orientation = 0.13, 95% CI [0.01, 0.28]) and high (Difference of indirect effects between high vs. low team performance-approach goal orientation = 0.33, 95% CI [0.05, 0.67]; Table 3). Therefore, H5 was supported.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Curvilinear Mediated Moderation Effects of Empowering Leadership on Team Performance Through Team Reflexivity (n = 137).

Team reflexivity as the mediator		Indirect effect	95% CI
Low level of EL (mean − 1 SD)	High level of TPPGO (+1 SD)	0.10	[0.01, 0.19]
	Low level of TPPGO (−1 SD)	0.17	[0.03, 0.32]
	Difference	−0.07	[−0.20, 0.01]
Medium level of EL (mean)	High level of TPPGO (+1 SD)	0.01	[−0.08, 0.09]
	Low level of TPPGO (−1 SD)	−0.12	[−0.27, −0.01]
	Difference	0.13	[0.01, 0.28]
High level of EL (mean + 1 SD)	High level of TPPGO (+1 SD)	−0.07	[−0.27, 0.05]
	Low level of TPPGO (−1 SD)	−0.40	[−0.80, −0.08]
	Difference	0.33	[0.05, 0.67]

Note. Mean refers to the mean value of empowering leadership. EL = empowering leadership; TPPGO = team performance-approach goal orientation.

Theoretical Implications

Our study has several contributions to the literature. First, our study extends the TMGT effect to the intersection of leadership and teams research, providing insights into how team-level empowering leadership affects team performance. While previous research has predominantly focused on the positive effects of empowering leadership on team outcomes (e.g., Amoroso et al., 2021; Hsu et al., 2023; Tang et al., 2020), there is a growing recognition of the need to include both the potential benefits and costs associated with this leadership approach into consideration (e.g., Cheong et al., 2019). As emerging research sheds light on the potential negative effects of empowering leadership on team-level helping behavior (Sun et al., 2022), scholars have gradually recognized that empowerment can be dysfunctional for optimal team functioning. Although prior studies have demonstrated inconsistent findings of empowering leadership at the team level (i.e., team performance), our understanding of how empowerment manifests these paradoxical effects was limited. Despite an indication of a curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and individual-level task performance in previous research (e.g., Appienti & Chen, 2019; S. Lee et al., 2016), this notion of nonlinearity has not been sufficiently explored in the context of the relationship between empowering leadership and team performance. To fill these research gaps, we moved beyond linear assumptions and leveraged the TMGT effect to uncover the curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and team performance, demonstrating that a moderate level of empowerment can benefit team performance, while excessive empowering leadership can have a detrimental impact. Our findings provide a more comprehensive perspective on the ongoing debate about whether empowering leadership is beneficial or harmful to team performance. We demonstrated that empowering leadership has a TMGT effect in the context of teams. To maintain the positive effects of team-level empowering leadership, our findings suggest that keeping empowerment within certain bounds can help mitigate potential negative outcomes.

Second, drawing on the team self-regulatory perspective (Kozlowski et al., 1996; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006), our study decrypted the “black box” of the curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and team performance by uncovering the mediating role of team reflexivity. The team self-regulatory perspective builds upon the individual self-regulatory perspective and extends it to the context of teams and groups (Lyubovnikova et al., 2015; Rapp et al., 2014). The team self-regulatory perspective recognizes that teams, as dynamic entities, engage in ongoing self-regulation to ensure their functioning and performance (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Therefore, as a self-regulatory mechanism for teams, team reflexivity can be driven by empowering leadership and in turn impacts team performance. Klotz et al. (2013) contended that researchers have begun to explore intermediary mechanisms for a more precise understanding of how team inputs contribute to team effectiveness (e.g., Hsu et al., 2023). Building on this perspective, Mitchell et al. (2019) further suggested that understanding how team members adapt their leadership behaviors during team processes is a crucial part of this exploration. Our findings contribute to this ongoing dialogue by revealing that empowering leadership has a curvilinear impact on team reflexivity, which in turn affects team performance. In doing so, we answer why empowering leadership has a curvilinear effect on team performance by identifying a key mediating mechanism: team reflexivity. We challenged the linear assumption of leadership-team process relationships, urging researchers to reconsider the conventional notion of monotonic positive or negative associations between leadership styles and team processes. Our research delved into the influence of team-level empowering leadership, bridging the broader literature on the team self-regulatory perspective and team reflexivity.

Finally, building upon the team self-regulatory perspective (Kozlowski et al., 1996; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006), our study uncovers the boundary conditions that influence the curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership, team reflexivity, and team performance. While recent scholarly efforts have explored the contingent roles of various team characteristics (i.e., team creative efficacy, Ali et al., 2020; team dispersion of proactive personality, R. Zhang et al., 2021) in shaping the relationship between leadership behaviors and team outcomes, the implications of team performance-approach goal orientation on empowering leadership have received little attention. From the team self-regulatory perspective, team performance goal-approach orientation is a team’s self-regulation ability that represents the mutual understanding among team members to obtain favorable evaluations and outperform other teams (Downes et al., 2021). Our findings indicate that the impact of empowering leadership at the team level may vary in effectiveness for team reflexivity and team performance based on team performance goal orientation. This insight underscores that achieving optimal team self-regulatory processes (i.e., team reflexivity) and performance depends on the team’s performance goal orientation.

Managerial Implications

Our findings have several practical implications. First, we showed that leaders’ excessive empowerment is costly for organizations because team members encountering higher levels of leader empowerment are more likely to have lower levels of team reflexivity and are less willing to engage in enhancing performance. As Cheong et al. (2016) suggested, an unconditional level of empowering behaviors by leaders toward their followers might cause unexpected dysfunctional results. Team members may feel that their leaders are giving up responsibilities or duties when they perceive excessive empowerment from leaders. Ultimately, diminished team reflexivity poses a threat to team performance. Thus, empowering leadership should not entail complete abdication of control or decision-making authority. Effective leaders must strike a balance, empowering their team members while providing guidance, support, and feedback when needed. Organizations should provide empowerment training for leaders to foster an awareness of the potential challenges and limitations of empowering leadership. This can help equip leaders with a nuanced perspective on centralization and empowerment, facilitating the attainment of the most positive outcomes.

Second, our findings indicated that team reflexivity plays a key mediating role in the positive effect of empowering leadership on team performance when empowerment is at a moderate level. Thus, team leaders should recognize the significance of team reflexivity and leverage it as a tool to enhance team performance. Leaders need to strike a balance between empowerment and providing necessary guidance, accountability, feedback, and opportunities for collaboration. Creating an environment that provides team members with an optimal level of autonomy and responsibility, coupled with clear goal-setting and effective feedback mechanisms, fosters team reflexivity, promoting adaptive and effective performance. Leaders can enhance the team’s collective reflective ability by implementing feedback mechanisms or conducting relevant training programs (Gurtner et al., 2007). Monitoring the quality of the team reflexivity process is also crucial to ensuring its positive impact on team performance. Organizations can collaborate with works council or participatory groups to provide reflexivity training for team members, encouraging open expression of viewpoints and information exchange. Such training cultivates flexibility, assertiveness, and adaptability, thereby promoting team reflexivity. Overall, leaders should pay attention to the balance of power and maintain a suitable level of empowerment. When excessive or insufficient empowerment is identified, timely adjustments should be made to ensure that the team has sufficient reflection processes in place to ensure optimal team performance.

Finally, our study also explored how team-level goal orientation can be configured to maximize the positive effect of empowering leadership. Compared to teams with lower-level performance-goal orientation, in teams with higher-level performance-goal orientation, the positive effect of empowering leadership is stronger, whereas its “dark side” effect is weaker. Thus, leaders should consciously improve the team’s performance-approach goal orientation and cultivate team members’ motivation to achieve high performance, stimulating the positive effects of empowering leadership on team performance. For example, to improve performance-approach goal orientation of their teams, team leaders can set a performance goal to encourage team members to restructure their capabilities and direct their attention toward completing their tasks effectively and efficiently.

Limitations and Future Research

Our study has limitations. First, our findings may not be generalized to other cultural settings because the data was collected in China only. Chinese culture emphasizes collectivism and obedience (C. Lin, 2010), different from most Western cultures. Future research should be conducted in other cultural contexts, and cross-cultural studies can help improve the generalizability of research findings. Second, although the mediating role of team reflexivity in the nonlinear relationship between empowering leadership and team performance is revealed, other potential mediators may exist. For example, team voice climate refers to the shared beliefs that members are willing to speak up within teams (Duan et al., 2018; Morrison et al., 2011). Empowering leadership increases team members’ autonomy and self-responsibilities in their work, which can increase their willingness to share suggestions and ideas within their team (Duan et al., 2018; Morrison et al., 2011). Future research can explore how empowering leadership affects team performance through team voice climate. Third, it was found that team performance-approach goal orientation moderates the nonlinear relationship between empowering leadership and team reflexivity. Future research could extend the investigation of contingencies between empowering leadership and team reflexivity to encompass job characteristics at the team level, such as team task complexity (Kamphuis et al., 2011) and task interdependence (Wageman & Gordon, 2005). Fourth, employees are often assigned to multiple teams simultaneously, a phenomenon known as multiple team membership (Rapp & Mathieu, 2019), which could profoundly affect work outcomes (Chen et al., 2019). We thus advocate for rigorous sample screening in future research to mitigate the potential effects of multiple team membership on the results. Finally, concerns may be raised about the structure of our dataset regarding reverse causality. While our model was constructed on a solid theoretical foundation, and we employed a two-wave, time-lagged design (capturing all predictors before the dependent variable) to reduce the likelihood of reverse causality, it is important to acknowledge that definitive causality among the relationships in our model cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, future research is encouraged to employ longitudinal or experimental designs to further explore lagged effects and enhance the robustness of the results.