The roles of conflict management and psychological empowerment in virtual teams

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to determine the impact of perceived virtuality on team dynamics and outcomes by adopting the Input-Mediators-Outcome (IMO) framework. Further, it also investigates the mediating role of team processes and emergent states.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors collected survey data from 315 individuals working in virtual teams (VTs) in the information technology sector in India using both offline and online questionnaires. They performed the analysis using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM).

Findings

The authors investigated two sets of hypotheses – both direct and indirect (or mediation interactions). Results show that psychological empowerment and conflict management are significant in managing VTs. Also, perceived virtuality impacts team outcomes, i.e. perceived team performance, team satisfaction and subjective well-being.

Research limitations/implications

The interplay between the behavioural team process (conflict management) and the emergent state (psychological empowerment) was examined. The study also helps broaden our understanding of the various psychological variables associated with teamwork in the context of VTs.

Practical implications

Findings from this study will aid in assessing the consequences of virtual teamwork at both individual and organisational levels, such as guiding the design and sustainability of VT arrangements, achieving higher productivity in VTs, and designing effective and interactive solutions in the virtual space.

Social implications

The study examined the interplay between behavioural team processes (such as conflict management) and emergent states (such as psychological empowerment). The study also theorises and empirically tests the relationships between perceived virtuality and team outcomes (i.e. both affective and effectiveness). It may serve as a guide to understanding team dynamics in VTs better.

Originality/value

This exploratory study attempts to enhance the current understanding of the research and practice of VTs within a developing economy.

Citation

Gupta, S., Pathak, G.S. and Biswas, B. (2024), "The roles of conflict management and psychological empowerment in virtual teams", Information Technology & People, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 66-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2022-0265

The idea of commuting for hours to work 9–5 in a dreary office is fast becoming as about as relevant as a fax machine in the working day.

– Mark Dixon, IWG founder and CEO.

1. Introduction

In 2013, Richard Branson said, “one day, offices will be a thing of the past” [1]. Also, the COVID-19 pandemic has redefined the existing paradigm of organisational business processes. Consequently, many organisations now face work-related challenges (Chamakiotis et al., 2021), such as difficulty in adopting hybrid work arrangements leading to less-connected employees who might be happy and less committed (Haas, 2022). To overcome these challenges, organisations are also shifting their existing work patterns. Some of them are embracing “remote work” policies to allow a minimal negative impact on the health of employees while also ensuring that they survive the pandemic shock (in press; Raghuram et al., 2019). Therefore, virtual workplaces and VTs have emerged as key survival strategies among many organisations (Chamakiotis, 2020; Doyle and Conboy, 2020). Recently, the remote-work policies for 80% of organisations shifted to virtual and mixed modes of team collaboration during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (Meluso et al., 2020). This change is also a fitting response to the commentary by social scientists who envisaged a dramatic shift in doing business across organisations (LaFasto et al., 2001).

However, remote working patterns and virtual teams are not entirely new. With the increase in the outsourcing of tasks, distribution of workload among offshore and onsite teams, and the emergence of computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools, workers have been collaborating electronically with co-workers or employees of other organisations. Often, these individuals have worked with multiple teams distributed over different geographical locations, major time zones, multiple business units, and even across diverse cultures and ethnicities. Therefore, it is evident that “conflicts” may arise within these virtual teams, and they need to be resolved amicably (Paul et al., 2004a, b; Nesterkin et al., 2016). Further, the employees working within virtual teams must be in an “empowered state” of mind to continue delivering their tasks and lead to outstanding team performance (Malik et al., 2021).

Recently, the emergence of “virtual world” platforms such as Metaverse and AR/VR (Cheng et al., 2022; Dwivedi et al., 2022; Shiau and Huang, 2023) has also created a new dimension of virtual teamwork. Many organisations such as Meta, Vastly and Party Space have built 3-D video games, immersive interaction tools and simulations to enable team-building exercises across VT employees. HR managers and staff at several technology firms such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Adobe use these simulation games to conduct team-building exercises to improve team performance outcomes among remotely working employees.

However, many challenges remain with the current design of virtual teams. First, many remote workers are challenged by burnout and remain disconnected from work (28% of employees) (GitLab, 2020). A survey conducted on the State of Remote Work reports that 20% of employees working in VTs find it difficult to collaborate with their colleagues [2]. Second, 12% of remote workers face distractions while working in their homes, while 10% struggle to collaborate with remote teams in different time zones. Therefore, across VTs, employees may suffer from a lack of empowerment due to incorrect task design, low job significance and the lack of importance of their roles during remote work. These challenges have made many employees feel unempowered at their VT workplaces, leading to lower performance outcomes. In this regard, psychological empowerment represents the perception of individuals concerning their capabilities, sovereignty within their work environments and the meaningfulness of their tasks. A few scholars have also suggested the mediating role of psychological empowerment between inputs and outcomes (Lee and Wei, 2011; Li et al., 2017; Malik et al., 2021). Further, some scholars have also identified the role of psychological empowerment towards the final team outcomes (Lin et al., 2017; Mills et al., 2020; Seibert et al., 2011), leading us to conclusively think of a new form of analysis of virtual teams using psychological empowerment as a mediator between virtuality and team outcomes, as well as examining its direct and indirect effects on those outcomes.

Second, a more recent study on the well-being of virtual employees found that more than 45% of remote employees say they have worked from their beds for 11 h per week [3]. The same study reports that 26% of remote workers feel socially isolated working in VTs. Hence, we note that VTs are not always successful, and many employees working in VTs remain dissatisfied and unhappy. Additionally, scholars have raised questions about employee well-being (Doyle and Conboy, 2020) and the satisfaction of team members within VTs [4]. Many VTs are also rife with distrust, interpersonal conflict, stress, high workload and lack of familiarity. Most of these challenges need to be addressed through adequate conflict management techniques within those virtual teams. According to scholars, conflict is an emergent state that enables better decision-making across teams through the promises of unconventional conclusions (Marks et al., 2001).

Third, VTs typically have “remote” working structures and workers in VTs employ ICT tools to communicate among themselves and execute their tasks (Kankanhalli et al., 2006; Paul et al., 2004a, b). Therefore, VTs are more susceptible towards interpersonal conflicts, and herein lies the importance of conflict management within VTs (Kankanhalli et al., 2006; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001; Van de Vliert and De Dreu, 1994). In this regard, only a few scholars have reported that conflict management mediates the antecedents and outcomes in a VT (Caputo et al., 2023; Gilson et al., 2015). Therefore, we were encouraged to examine the effects of conflict management as a mediator between virtuality and team outcomes in addition to studying its direct effect on those outcomes.

Fourth, in the context of those employees working within VTs, the effect of individual team satisfaction on the remaining team outcomes, i.e. perceived team performance and subjective well-being, needs re-examination. Employees' satisfaction while working within VTs may reflect upon the ensuing team performance, especially affective outcomes such as team satisfaction and subjective well-being. While team satisfaction remains an important metric for virtual teams (Gilson et al., 2015; Handke et al., 2021), it also requires to be measured by performance indicators (i.e. team performance) as well as by subjective well-being (Gilli et al., 2022). We intend to examine these relationships in this study because, apart from a few scholars, past literature has not been vocal about these relationships (Cavazotte et al., 2020; Jeanquart Miles and Mangold, 2002; Stark and Bierly, 2009).

Fifth, the traditional IPO model for team effectiveness examined the teamwork process as a “black box” (McGrath, 1964). Many research articles investigating virtual teams are typically based on the IPO framework (Dulebohn and Hoch, 2017; Shoaib et al., 2022). Further, much extant research on VTs has focused solely on factors affecting VTs without drawing support from a robust theoretical framework. Also, contradictions have emerged regarding the theories and frameworks applicable to the study of VTs (Schiller and Mandviwalla, 2007). A review of recent research on virtual teams (Table 1 and Table 2) also reveals that few studies have addressed the abovementioned gaps using the IMO framework. Further, most studies have been satisfied with examining (team or individual) performance as the final outcome, while team satisfaction and subjective well-being are left unexplored. In this aspect, a holistic and theoretically-grounded framework is necessary to examine the different constructs of virtual teams, their mutual relationships, and finally, what drives their performance. Therefore, we present the following research questions through which we aim to address these gaps:

RQ1.

What is the impact of perceived virtuality on the outcomes of a VT (i.e. perceived team performance, team satisfaction and subjective well-being)?

RQ2.

How do psychological empowerment and conflict management mediate these relationships?

RQ3.

Among those VT outcomes, how does team satisfaction affect perceived team performance and subjective well-being?

The remainder of the paper is as follows. Section 2 presents the literature on virtuality, mediators and team outcomes, while Section 3 builds the hypotheses. Section 4 presents the research methodology and data collection, followed by analysis in Section 5. Further, key findings are discussed in Section 6. Section 7 presents the implications of this study, followed by the limitations and future scopes in Section 8.

2. Theoretical foundation and literature review

2.1 The input–mediator–output (IMO) theoretical framework

In this study, we adopted the IMO theoretical framework proposed by Mathieu et al. (2008) to emphasise the importance of emergent states and processes in VTs. When taken together, the results offer a clearer picture of how the team perform and affect an individual's satisfaction and well-being. The IMO model extends the classical input–process–output (IPO) model (Hackman, 1987; McGrath, 1984; McGrath et al., 2000), which is extensively used in behavioural studies. Within IMO, inputs represent the list of resources available to a VT, which can range between external (such as organisational rewards or workplace mobility) and internal (e.g. team distribution or task design) or exist at the organisational, team, or individual levels (Fuller et al., 2016). The next stage of the IMO framework consists of the mediators representing different psychological mechanisms (such as team processes and emergent states) that signify critical phenomena within the VTs (Marlow et al., 2017; Mathieu et al., 2008, 2019). As the IMO framework extends the IPO framework by suggesting that most constructs in the IPO framework are not process(es) at all but emergent states (cognitive or affective) and mediators (Ilgen et al., 2005; Mathieu et al., 2008). Thus, the inputs impact the mediators, allowing team members to work on available resources and perform the assigned work within the VTs. Finally, the outputs (or outcomes) consider measures for both affective outcomes and team effectiveness (Mathieu and Gilson, 2012; Hertel et al., 2005; Maynard et al., 2015) (such as team performance or team satisfaction). Therefore, we examine the extant literature on VTs based on the IMO theoretical framework and categorise the salient research articles into two sets – Type I (empirical studies) and Type II (reviews and meta-analyses). We structure our literature based on the three dimensions of the IMO theoretical framework, i.e. inputs, mediators and outcomes within each research article, and summarise their key research findings (presented in Table 1 and Table 2).

Inputs: Within the extant literature on VTs examined by the IMO theoretical framework, the most widely used input variables are virtuality (Handke et al., 2020, 2021; Purvanova and Kenda, 2022); knowledge and skills of team members (e.g. Schulze and Krumm, 2017; Wei et al., 2018; Zhang and Guo, 2019); team dimension and context (Schulze and Krumm, 2017; Wei et al., 2018) and different forms of leadership (Andressen et al., 2012; Han et al., 2018).

Mediators: Based on the VTs literature, the following are some of the mediators: virtual team participation (Fuller et al., 2016); team-member behaviours (Hsu et al., 2017); goal commitment and knowledge sharing (Han et al., 2018); knowledge leadership (Zhang and Guo, 2019) and team synergy and motivation (Holtz et al., 2020); psychological empowerment (Malik et al., 2021) and team processes (Rogers et al., 2021).

Outputs: Based on the extant VT literature, scholars have examined both affective (such as team satisfaction, individual member satisfaction, and subjective well-being) and effectiveness outcomes (such as team performance, individual member performance and financial outcomes). Although Mathieu and Gilson (2012) and Hertel et al. (2005) recommend that scholars need to study affective outcomes (such as satisfaction) of team members, in addition to the overall performance-related outcomes, such studies are few (see the column “outcome” in Table 1 and Table 2). Wei et al. (2018) studied the impact of team climates (team cohesion, confidence, knowledge and skills) on the perceived team performance (performance outcome) using the IMO framework. Han et al. (2018) studied the effect of shared leadership on team performance (measured by content, efficiency, excellence and originality) (performance outcome). Zhang and Guo (2019) examined the effect of knowledge diversity on the performance of cross-functional teams measured by effectiveness and efficiency (performance outcome) and team satisfaction (affect outcome). Rogers et al. (2021) examined the effects of peer skills and interactions on satisfaction (affect outcome) by comparing face-to-face and virtual teams.

2.2 Perceived virtuality

Kirkman and Mathieu (2005) define virtuality as (1) the extent to which VT members used virtual tools to coordinate and execute team processes, (2) the amount of informational value provided by such tools and (3) the synchronicity of the virtual interaction among VT members. Handke et al. (2021) define perceived virtuality “as a shared affective-cognitive emergent state that is characterised by team members' co-constructed and collectively-experienced (1) distance and (2) information deficits, thereby capturing the unrealised nature of the team as a collective system ….” They adopt the IMO theoretical framework and propose that perceived virtuality is a collective team attribute. Over the years, scholars from the VT literature have proposed different dimensions to measure virtuality – two (i.e. electronic dependence and geographic dispersion) (Cohen and Gibson, 2003), three (i.e. technology support, time apart while working on a task and physical distance) (Griffith et al., 2003), three (i.e. use of VT tools, informational value and synchronicity of communication) (Kirkman and Mathieu, 2005) and four (i.e. geographic dispersion, use of CMC, temporality and diversity) (Martins et al., 2004) to examine the influence of virtuality on team outcomes. Schweitzer and Duxbury (2010) studied thirty VTs to create the construct degree of virtuality. Johnson et al. (2009) examined 150 members using CMC across VTs and found that individuals who used CMC experienced low positive affect while working with their VTs. Schulze and Krumm (2017) reviewed the VT literature and identified six knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAO) clusters deemed vital for virtual teams. Within the VT literature, many studies have also identified virtuality as an essential input in virtual teams that can affect their subsequent processes, emergent states and outcomes (Brown et al., 2020; Foster et al., 2015; Gibson and Gibbs, 2006; Handke et al., 2020, 2021; Henderson, 2008; Hinds and Bailey, 2000; Purvanova and Kenda, 2022).

2.3 Psychological empowerment

Psychological empowerment can be related to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1982), which further stems from the views of team members regarding their beliefs of being empowered in their roles and responsibilities (Lee and Koh, 2001; Spreitzer, 1995) and their subsequent motivational outcomes within a team (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Mathieu et al., 2008). Scholars have adapted the definition of psychological empowerment to the IPO framework and positioned it as an emergent state, “a cognitive, motivational, and affective state of teams … that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes and outcomes” (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Kirkman et al., 2004; Marks et al., 2001). Maynard et al. (2012) and Amor et al. (2021) identified structural empowerment, organisational support, external managerial support and team competencies as antecedents of psychological empowerment. Extant literature on virtual teams has also established the role of psychological empowerment as a mediator between inputs and outcomes such as participative goal setting and team outcomes (Lee and Wei, 2011); agile antecedents (i.e. team autonomy, diversity, agile communications) and innovative behaviour of employees (Malik et al., 2021); team-directed empowering leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour (Li et al., 2017); prior performance and post-performance (D'Innocenzo et al., 2021). Further, VT literature has also demonstrated evidence of the significant effects of psychological empowerment towards the final team outcome, such as building a sense of task motivation to increase team performance (Seibert et al., 2011; Amor et al., 2021), increased team engagement to influence the project outcomes (Mills et al., 2020); organisational empowerment climate and employee service quality (Lin et al., 2017).

2.4 Conflict management

Scholars have found that conflict is a significant interpersonal process that enables better decision-making across teams through possibilities of alternative outcomes (Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Marks et al., 2001; Nesterkin et al., 2016). Therefore, conflict management within a team is an important determinant of its outcomes, such as team performance and team satisfaction (Baron, 1989; Kankanhalli et al., 2006; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001; Paul et al., 2004a, b; Putnam, 1986; Van de Vliert and De Dreu, 1994). Team members in VTs typically employ ICT tools to communicate among themselves to execute their tasks (Kankanhalli et al., 2006; Paul et al., 2004a, b) and, therefore, are more susceptible towards conflicts (Wakefield et al., 2008). Extant literature on virtual teams has also established the role of conflict management as a mediator between team inputs and team outcomes such as commitments to team goals and perceived performance satisfaction (Pazos, 2012); e-profile use of employees and shared understanding mediated by conflict (i.e. relational conflict and task conflict) (Windeler et al., 2015; Nesterkin et al., 2016). In their seminal review of VT literature, Gilson et al. (2015) found that conflict management was often studied as a mediator that adversely affected team processes and outcomes. A recent bibliometric and literature review by Caputo et al. (2023) also suggests that conflict management mediates the antecedents and outcomes in a VT. Further, extant literature has identified the direct effects of conflict management towards the outcome measure (in a team or group), such as collaborative conflict management style to increase decision-related outcomes (i.e. satisfaction, perceived quality, perceived participation and agreement) (Paul et al., 2004a, b).

3. Hypothesis development and proposed research model

We propose the hypotheses in this section from the extant literature on VTs and the IMO framework.

3.1 Impact of virtuality on team outcomes

Virtuality is a contextual variable that affects various aspects of VTs, including team processes, performance and outcomes (Brown et al., 2020; Foster et al., 2015; Gibson and Gibbs, 2006; Handke et al., 2020, 2021; Henderson, 2008; Hinds and Bailey, 2000; Purvanova and Kenda, 2022). Handke et al. (2021) define perceived virtuality “as a shared affective-cognitive emergent state that is characterised by team members' co-constructed and collectively experienced (1) distance and (2) information deficits, thereby capturing the unrealised nature of the team as a collective system ….” They adopt the IMOI theoretical framework and propose that perceived virtuality is a collective team attribute. However, the definition of virtuality has often varied with the understanding of the scholars (Chudoba et al., 2005; De Guinea et al., 2012; Hosseini and Chileshe, 2013; Lu et al., 2006; Panteli and Chiasson, 2008).

3.1.1 Virtuality and perceived team performance

Several studies have investigated the positive impact of virtuality on perceived team performance (Brown et al., 2020; Foster et al., 2015; Handke et al., 2020, 2021; Lu et al., 2006). Lu et al. (2006) found that the dimensions of virtuality significantly influenced performance, communication, trust among team members and the ability to meet commitments on time. Chudoba et al. (2005) proposed a virtuality index to measure the aspects of virtuality using team distribution, workplace mobility and various work practices on the final team performance of the virtual team. Further, according to the IMO framework, virtuality is a multidimensional construct that can serve as a team “input” and directly affect the team “outcome”. So, the degree of virtuality across VTs will positively affect the perceived team performance. Therefore, we hypothesise:

H1a.

Virtuality will positively influence the perceived team performance of individuals working in VTs.

3.1.2 Virtuality and team satisfaction

According to Keyton (1991), satisfaction is a situational variable and an affective component of team performance. Therefore, it reflects the happiness of team members while they perform their tasks. Team satisfaction measures a team member's fulfilment, aggregated to the team level (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; LePine et al., 2008). Among recent studies, Rogers et al. (2021) found a positive effect of team processes towards team satisfaction within VTs by applying the IMO framework. Handke et al. (2021) adopted the IMOI framework. They found that perceived virtuality is a collective team property as team members interact with each other and will have a distinct impact on team satisfaction. Dulebohn and Hoch (2017) also reported the effect of perceived virtuality on individual-level outcomes such as team-member satisfaction. Virtuality affects team satisfaction (Thompson and Coovert, 2003), with evidence of stronger interpersonal relationships and team ties linked to stronger motivation and lower process loss, thereby improving team satisfaction (Fock et al., 2011). Therefore, we hypothesise that:

H1b.

Virtuality will positively influence the perceived team satisfaction of individuals working in virtual teams.

3.1.3 Virtuality and subjective well-being

Virtuality significantly influences interpersonal processes within teams (Hinds and Bailey, 2000), such as communication (Leenders et al., 2003), trust and cohesiveness (Crisp and Jarvenpaa, 2013), and outcomes such as member satisfaction and productivity (Caballer et al., 2005). Technological changes often affect an individual's work-related well-being (Cañibano et al., 2021; Chamakiotis, 2020; Doyle and Conboy, 2020). While some changes may lead to the automation of routine activities, such as work-from-home decisions and greater access to information, others may present challenges to the individual's well-being, such as work-life, or home-life interference (Derks et al., 2015), quality of recovery time (Sonnentag, 2003), loss of control and increased stress (Chamakiotis, 2020; Deery et al., 2002; Doyle and Conboy, 2020). Further, according to the IMO theoretical framework, a team's virtuality can directly affect its employees' well-being. Subjective well-being, therefore, represents the individual opinion regarding the quality of life of an employee (Krueger and Stone, 2014; Michalke et al., 2022). It can be promoted by permitting the employees to be independent and proficient and improving their subjective understanding of the tasks (Peters et al., 2018), according to the self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Thus, we hypothesise:

H1c.

Virtuality will positively influence the subjective well-being of individuals working in virtual teams.

3.2 Impact of virtuality on psychological empowerment and conflict management

Scholars have adopted the definition of psychological empowerment to the IMO framework and positioned it as an emergent state, “a cognitive, motivational, and affective state of teams … that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes and outcomes” (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Kirkman et al., 2004; Marks et al., 2001; Schaubroeck and Yu, 2017). Maynard et al. (2012) also suggested that team virtuality is an antecedent of psychological empowerment. Further, psychological empowerment positively impacts team performance in both face-to-face and virtual contexts (Amor et al., 2021; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Kirkman et al., 2004). For instance, as noted by Kirkman and associates (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Kirkman and Mathieu, 2005), VT members enjoy an empowered collaboration due to relatively higher control in their proximal work environment. Hill et al. (2014) also found that the degree of virtuality affected the leader-member exchange in virtual teams and psychological empowerment. Thus, we hypothesise:

H2.

Virtuality will positively influence the psychological empowerment of employees working in virtual teams.

Next, virtual teams typically operate across multiple geographical locations, dissimilar time zones, different business units and even across numerous cultures (Mortensen and Hinds, 2001). A meta-analysis by De Dreu and Weingart (2003) concluded that conflicts existed in all types of teams and negatively affected team performance and team members' satisfaction. Conflicts within virtual teams often emerge due to a lack of face-to-face communication, trust and differences in value systems (De Jong et al., 2008; Pazos, 2012). Further, VTs employed ICT tools to communicate among themselves to execute their tasks and, therefore, are more susceptible towards conflicts (Jimenez et al., 2017; Nesterkin et al., 2016; Kankanhalli et al., 2006; Paul et al., 2004a, b). In a recent literature review, Caputo et al. (2023) applied the IPO framework. They found that virtual teams require more conflict management techniques, not to eradicate it completely but to find means to manage it properly. It is, therefore, expected that the role of conflict management will be more important to virtual teams than face-to-face teams. Thus, we hypothesise:

H3.

Virtuality will positively influence the conflict management process within virtual teams.

3.3 Impact of psychological empowerment and conflict management on team outcomes

Next, we discuss the proposed relationships of the mediators in two ways; first, by considering conflict management and psychological empowerment as independent variables and their direct impact on the team outcomes. Second, we examine the mediating roles of psychological empowerment and conflict management within the relationships of virtuality towards team outcomes.

3.3.1 Direct impact of psychological empowerment on team outcomes

Previous literature has examined psychological empowerment at various levels of analysis as an isomorphic construct (Chen et al., 2007). Kirkman et al. (2004) also argued that team empowerment might be more critical to the performance of virtual teams than co-located teams. Often, in the case of virtual teams, empowerment builds a sense of task motivation that may increase the performance of team members (Seibert et al. (2011), revealing a positive association with managerial and employee effectiveness. Previous studies have also identified a strong relationship between satisfaction with empowerment (Carless, 2004; Harris et al., 2009). Maynard et al. (2012) noted the influence of empowerment on effective rather than performance outcomes. Seibert et al. (2011) found that psychological empowerment is positively associated with employee outcomes, including team satisfaction, commitment, task and contextual performance.

Next, according to Diener (1984), well-being is “a person's subjective positive experience of life and is closely related to happiness, satisfaction, morale, and positive effect”. Creating a positive work environment for employees can positively impact their work performance and well-being. Van Mierlo et al. (2001) stated that autonomy (or empowerment) is positively related to subjective well-being. Russell (2008) opined that researchers and practitioners must continue exploring how different work practices can help to create more positive workplaces and lead to healthy employee outcomes. Thus, we hypothesise:

H4a.

Psychological empowerment will positively influence the perceived team performance of individuals working in virtual teams.

H4b.

Psychological empowerment will positively influence team satisfaction of individuals working in virtual teams.

H4c.

Psychological empowerment will positively influence the subjective well-being of individuals working in virtual teams.

3.3.2 Direct impact of conflict management on team outcomes

Previous literature has examined conflict management and identified its key roles in facilitating team outcomes (Killumets et al., 2015; Marks et al., 2001). Marks et al. (2001) also contended that conflict management worked to be more critical to the performance of virtual teams. When team members belong to a team that engages in positive interpersonal processes, such as managing conflict, it often enables them to believe that their voices have been heard through productive discussions regarding goal accomplishment. Therefore, a positive relationship exists between interpersonal processes (such as conflict management) and performance across teams (such as team satisfaction, team performance and satisfaction) (Lin et al., 2008; Mathieu et al., 2008, 2019; Martins et al., 2004).

Among extant studies, Pazos (2012) used the IMO theoretical framework and found that effective conflict management techniques could affect team outcomes in VTs – team performance and satisfaction. Langfred (2007) found that conflict in self-managing teams could jeopardise team members' trust and affect their overall team performance. Martínez-Moreno et al. (2015) examined the effects of self-guided training on conflict management in VTs. They found that synchronous teams used more functional strategies to improve their team performance outcomes. Tekleab et al. (2009) found that conflict management directly and positively affected team cohesion, while Yang et al. (2015) found that team cohesion directly affected team performance in fast-response virtual teams. Thus, we hypothesise:

H5a.

Conflict management will positively influence the perceived performance of individuals working in virtual teams.

H5b.

Conflict management will positively influence team satisfaction of individuals working in virtual teams.

H5c.

Conflict management will positively influence the subjective well-being of individuals working in virtual teams.

3.3.3 Mediating effects of psychological empowerment and conflict management

Scholars have reported that the “virtual” design of the work environment can influence psychological empowerment (Kraimer et al., 1999; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), thereby leading to a more favourable performance outcome. Laschinger et al. (2001) conducted a cross-sectional study and found that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between empowerment and individual satisfaction. Further, scholars observed that when employees gained a sense of higher empowerment, they became self-motivated and reported better performances (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Similarly, when employees perceive their (virtual) work environment as empowered, their sense of team satisfaction might also increase. In this manner, psychological empowerment builds a sense of belonging that typically leads to employees being more engaged in their workplace (Fock et al., 2011, 2013). Liden et al. (2000) and Sparks et al. (2001) pointed out that the employees who perceived themselves as performing an activity of their choice compared to those directed to have higher intrinsic motivation. Such employees accepted more personal responsibility for their work outcomes and reported high psychological empowerment (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). Extant literature has also identified psychological empowerment as a mediator between inputs and outcomes such as participative goal setting and team outcomes (Lee and Wei, 2011); agile antecedents (i.e. team autonomy, diversity, agile communications) and innovative behaviour of employees (Malik et al., 2021); team-directed empowering leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour (Li et al., 2017); prior performance and post-performance (D'Innocenzo et al., 2021). Thus, we hypothesise:

H6a.

Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between virtuality and perceived team performance.

H6b.

Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between virtuality and team satisfaction.

H6c.

Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between virtuality and subjective well-being.

Next, the extant literature on VTs has also established the role of conflict management as a mediator between team inputs and team outcomes, such as commitments to team goals and perceived performance satisfaction (Pazos, 2012); e-profile use of employees and shared understanding mediated by conflict (i.e. relational conflict and task conflict) (Windeler et al., 2015. In their seminal review of VT literature, Gilson et al. (2015) found that conflict management was often studied as a mediator that adversely affected team processes and outcomes. A recent bibliometric and literature review by Caputo et al. (2023) also suggests that conflict management best mediates between the antecedents and outcomes in a VT. Thus, we hypothesise:

H7a.

Conflict management will mediate the relationship between virtuality and perceived team performance.

H7b.

Conflict management will mediate the relationship between virtuality and team satisfaction.

H7c.

Conflict management will mediate the relationship between virtuality and subjective well-being.

3.4 Relationships between various team outcomes

Scholars define perceived team performance as the perceptions of team members of their team's productivity and performance (Jehn et al., 1997). Extant research has highlighted that individual team satisfaction contributes to performance and well-being (Chamakiotis, 2020; Cañibano et al., 2021). Van Mierlo et al. (2005) reported that teamwork and team performance was primarily linked to job satisfaction. They also concluded that teamwork was associated with positive psychological outcomes. Cavazotte et al. (2020) examined the effects of team satisfaction on team performance, leading to positive customer satisfaction. Gilli et al. (2022) found that average satisfaction within the team is related to higher team performance.

Next, team satisfaction may impact subjective well-being because work is vital in the lives of individuals. Therefore, team satisfaction may influence subjective well-being. In the work domain, occupational satisfaction is a predictor of life satisfaction. Various studies have reported higher satisfaction levels among employed versus unemployed people (Patterson et al., 2004; Warr, 1990). Further, George and Brief (1992) have pointed out that people who experience high subjective well-being tend to become more engaged and involved in their work. Thus, we hypothesise:

H8.

Team satisfaction will positively influence the perceived team performance of individuals working in virtual teams.

H9.

Team satisfaction will positively influence the subjective well-being of individuals working in virtual teams.

We present the conceptual framework in Figure 1.

4. Research methodology and data collection

4.1 Instrument and constructs

We collected data from employees working in Information Technology (IT) firms using structured items from a questionnaire (Table A1). The responses were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

1. Virtuality: We measured the three dimensions of virtuality with twelve items adapted from Chudoba et al. (2005). The respondents replied to reflect on how often they experienced the aspect of discontinuity, such as working with people from different business groups, time zones or cultural backgrounds, whether they had used a variety of technologies, worked at various locations and collaborated with people outside their organisations.

2. Conflict Management: We measured conflict management using a four-item scale adapted from Pazos (2012) and also used by Tekleab et al. (2009). We operationalised conflict management as to how the team could prevent negative conflicts and solve emerging conflicts (Pazos, 2012).

3. Psychological Empowerment: We measured psychological empowerment with a twelve-item scale adapted from Spreitzer (1995). A sample item is “The work I do is very important to me”.

4. Perceived Team Performance: We used a five-item scale adapted from Mortensen and Hinds (2001) to measure perceived team performance. De Jong et al. (2008) adopted a similar scale for virtual teams; hence, adaptation for the current study is justified.

5. Satisfaction: We used a five-item scale adapted from Tekleab et al. (2009) to assess individual-level satisfaction within a team.

6. Subjective Well-being: The widely used “life satisfaction” scale was adapted from Pavot and Diener (1993) to measure the construct of well-being for this research work. This scale consists of five items. A sample item is “In most ways; my life is close to my ideal”.

The proposed model in this study consists of both formative and reflective indicators, which makes the model more robust (Gefen et al., 2011; Henseler et al., 2014). We operationalised virtuality as a Reflective-Formative (R-F) type of hierarchical component construct because virtuality consists of the reflectively measured first-order constructs — team distribution, workplace mobility and variety of practices and the lower-order constructs do not share a common cause but rather form a general concept that fully mediates the influence on subsequent endogenous variables. For a more detailed description of Hierarchal Component Models (HCM) types, the reader may refer to the study of Becker et al. (2012).

4.2 Initial screening and pilot study

We employed the “decentering” method (Brislin, 1980) to adopt the instrument scales. As a rule, the goal of this adaptation process is a functional equivalence (Elder, 1976; Osgood, 1967). Further, we conducted a pilot study to test the scale properties. The sample for the pilot study consisted of 20 employees working in the IT industry and possessing experience working in virtual teams. Scholars have suggested testing the pilot questionnaire to improve the face and content validity. Cooper and Schindler (2007) have also suggested that researchers should do pilot testing of the questionnaire before the final version and mail-out. Based on the pilot, we tested the scales for face and content validity and did not drop any items.

Also, before conducting the primary empirical analysis, experts were asked to pre-test the questionnaire and pay specific attention to the content, wording, sequence, format, layout, difficulty and clarity of instructions. We observed that the respondents monitored their reactions and attitudes towards the questionnaire during this pre-test. Based on the problems identified and the inputs received from the respondents, we made minor adjustments to the questionnaire. Finally, we chose Times New Roman 12-point fonts while finalising the instrument for offline and online modes.

4.3 Sampling and data collection

This research aims to study a model of VT effectiveness in the context of the IT industry of India. Therefore, the population in our study can be summarised as the organisations within India's IT industry and, specifically, multinational organisations that employ VTs within the technology consulting and software development domains. Therefore, employees working in four major sub-sectors of the IT industry, such as IT services, Business Processes Outsourcing (BPO) or Business Process Management, Engineering design and product development and Hardware, were considered the target population of this study. Firms of all sizes: small, medium and large, were considered for the data collection process, but large multinational organisations were preferred.

Due to the various difficulties associated with access to data collection in organisations, researchers often adopt an “opportunist approach” (Buchanan et al., 1988) to gain access and choose respondents for research (Saunders, 2013). Therefore, Buchanan and colleagues believe it is better to compromise to a limited extent and be able to collect data that will address the major aim of the research (Saunders, 2013). Similarly, Fricker (2014) opines that conducting surveys requires making compromises, as in all modes of data collection. In the quest for knowledge in science, researchers adopt various data collection methods: “survey method is one of them because surveys can provide us accurate, reliable, and valid data, but to do this they require serious effort and thought” (Shah et al., 2015). Hence, for the current research, we adopted a combination of different sampling methods due to the specific nature of the research problem.

We conducted both offline and online surveys for this study. For the offline survey, we selected specific IT firms in select geographical locations based on the prior communication with the HR departments in those organisations in Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Delhi NCR in India. After receiving permission, we distributed the offline questionnaires to organisations that permitted access to respondents. Out of 450 questionnaires, only 80 filled and useable questionnaires were collected using an offline survey, leading to a response rate of 17.78% (80 out of 450). We collected the duly completed questionnaires and thanked the respondents for participating.

Due to the need for formal engagements with the HR departments, we found a very low response rate in the offline data collection mode; therefore, we planned for online data collection. For the online surveys, we contacted respondents using an invitation letter via email, where we outlined the purpose of our research and explained why we value the respondents' involvement. We sent emails inviting potential participants who fit specific inclusion criteria (working in the IT sector and having worked in virtual teams) and wished to volunteer for the study. The respondents were also requested to forward the email to ten colleagues/team members working in the IT sector. By following this process, we collected 235 successful responses through online surveys. Therefore, 80 + 235 = 315 completed responses were ready for empirical analysis.

Finally, according to Gefen et al. (2011) and Chin and Newsted (1999), the minimum requirement of the sample size for a Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) based study should not be less than ten times the number of items within the most complex and formative construct of the model. Based on this rule of thumb, the minimum sample size requirement for this research is 120 responses (10 × 12) as the number of items in the most complex formative construct: psychological empowerment, is twelve. The total usable responses were 315, more than the minimum sample size requirement of 120, aligned with the rule of thumb (Chin, 1998; Hair et al., 2013; Gefen et al., 2011).

We applied PLS-SEM to test our conceptual model with SmartPLS Version 3.2.7. PLS-SEM is a suitable statistical technique for testing exploratory models or theory-building in emerging areas (Chen et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2017; Hair et al., 2014; Khan et al., 2019; Shiau et al., 2019, 2020). Further, our proposed model consists of formative and reflective indicators, making PLS-SEM an appropriate choice (Chen et al., 2022; Henseler et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2017; Khan et al., 2019; Shiau et al., 2019, 2020). Additionally, PLS-SEM can handle mediation effects easily. PLS-SEM has been widely used to examine team effectiveness for virtual teams (Crisp and Jarvenpaa, 2013; Staples and Webster, 2008). Figure 2 shows the different stages of data collection and analysis.

4.4 Data preparation and examination

While examining the raw data, we did not find any missing values. Before conducting the main empirical analysis, we examined the response patterns from raw data. Based on the straight-lining technique (Hair et al., 2014), we did not find any suspicious response patterns, indicating a high engagement and involvement of the respondents. Further, we found no exceptional cases, possibly due to our control towards common method bias by applying both the procedural and statistical approaches (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

4.5 Demographics and profile of respondents

The study involved IT professionals belonging to multinational organisations in India. Since most software professionals from large organisations work in teams, the possibility of receiving relevant results was high. The questionnaire started with a cover letter that provided an overview of the study. It also included a screening question that helped to identify the most appropriate and representative respondents. Further, the respondents were requested to provide personal information – such as gender, age, education, work experience, designation/role in the virtual team, etc. During the demographic analysis, we found that out of 315 respondents, 177 were males (56.19%), and 138 were females (43.80%), so the sample size was an almost homogeneous mix of both genders. In terms of age, 42 respondents (13.33%) were found in their early ages, i.e. below 25 years, whereas 130 (41.27%) were in the middle-age category (between 26 and 35 years). Notably, approximately 55% of the respondents were under 35. Additionally, we asked the respondents to mention their experience working within virtual teams, which is relevant to this study. Of the 315 respondents, 42 (13.33%) and 54 (17.14%) reported having more than 10 years and 6–10 years of experience in virtual teams, respectively. Whereas 136 (43.17%) respondents reported having 3–6 years of work experience in virtual teams. Therefore, the respondents had adequate exposure to the functioning of virtual teams. As the study focused on multinational organisations for data collection, the organisation's size also reflects this trend. Approximately 238 (75%) respondents reported that their organisations had more than ten thousand employees, indicating they were stationed in multinational corporations and familiar with global work practices. Conversely, only 62 employees (19.68%) reported that their organisation had 5000 to 10,000 employees. None of the respondents reported their strength as less than five hundred employees (refer to Table 3 for details). The subsequent sections will provide details of the main data analysis.

5. Results

5.1 Evaluation of the measurement (outer) model

Based on past literature (Becker et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2022; Shiau et al., 2019, 2020). We assessed the measurement model in two stages: the adequacy of the reflective measurement model and the validation of the formative hierarchical component model.

5.1.1 Adequacy of the reflective measurement model

We validated the reliability of the reflective constructs by measuring their convergent validity and discriminant validity. First, we checked the outer loadings of the items. Typically, outer loadings should be 0.708 or higher (Chin, 1998; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All the first-order constructs in our model displayed composite reliability between 0.855 and 0.958 (see Table 4), and the Cronbach alpha (α) between 0.772 and 0.945 is well above the threshold values of 0.7. These results indicated good construct reliability of the reflective constructs.

Next, we assessed the discriminant validity to ensure that a reflective construct has the strongest relationships with its own indicators compared to any other construct in the PLS path model (Hair et al., 2014; Hulland, 1999). As Chin (1998) suggested, we have checked the discriminant validity with two measures, Fornell–Larcker criteria based on the analysis of average variance extracted (AVE) and cross-loadings examination. We found that all the diagonal elements (AVE values) are larger than the off-diagonal correlations in the rows and columns, thus meeting the criteria (Fornell–Larcker Criterion) of the test (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). We found that the AVE values of all constructs were above the threshold of 0.5, and values were between 0.542 and 0.884. Similarly, the results of the cross-loading examination indicate that all 41 indicators loaded distinctly on the specified construct they measured. Hence, the collective results of cross-loadings and the Fornell–Larcker demonstrate good discriminant validity at the construct level (see Table 5 and Table 6).

5.1.2 Validation of the formative hierarchical component model

Next, we examined the multicollinearity and internal validity of the formative items used in the hierarchical component model. The existence of high correlations between formative items indicates the presence of collinearity which could be a problem (Hair et al., 2014). Our results showed that the variance inflation factor (VIF) values for the formative construct (i.e. virtuality) ranged between 4.213 and 2.344, which was below the threshold value of 5, while the tolerance values were above the 0.20 threshold (Hair et al., 2013), exhibiting no collinearity among the items of the second-order construct (see Table 7).

Across PLS-SEM-based studies, scholars adhere to different standards of acceptable VIF values, such as 10.00 (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014, Chapter 7). However, according to Ringle et al. (2020), due to the lack of a suitable VIF threshold, researchers may adhere to the more conservative rules of thumb, such as 3.33 (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006) or 5 (Hair et al., 2011). In our study, the VIF value for one formative construct was higher than 3.33, so we carefully re-checked the diagnostics to dismiss any chances of multicollinearity. A similar approach has been adopted in literature (Ranjan and Read, 2016; Ringle et al., 2020).

Further, we evaluated the path coefficients of the relationships (β) between the first-order and the second-order construct to determine their internal validities. We observed that all the first-order constructs had a critical t-value well above the threshold value of 2.57 (p < 0.01) (see Table 8). Therefore, the first-order constructs (TD, WM and VOP) form a second-order construct (PV), and the proposed measurement model is valid (Table 4). Based on these results, it also presents acceptable levels of indicator reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. The results also show that the constructs are within acceptable error levels. Thus, the measurement model demonstrates sufficient robustness to test the relationships between the constructs (assessment of the structural model).

5.1.3 Assessment of common method bias

Due to the self-reported nature of the collected data, there was a possibility that the relationships could be potentially affected by common method bias (CMB) (Podsakoff et al., 2003). First, to minimise the effects of consistency artefacts, we measured the questionnaire items related to the independent variable, followed by the mediating and dependent variables. Second, we tested the presence of CMB by using Harman's one-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results demonstrated that the first factor explains 33.830% of the overall variance of the forty-one factors. The fact that the first factor did not account for most of the variance (>50%) indicates that the data is not affected by CMB (Harman, 1967).

As recommended by past literature, we also conducted a marker variable test (Chin et al., 2012; Liang et al., 2021; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Rönkkö and Ylitalo, 2011; Shiau et al., 2020). In particular, we followed the procedure adopted by Liang et al. (2021). First, we identified the marker variables from our survey responses such that they were not included in our theoretically-based conceptual model and did not have any explicit theoretical influence(s) on the items of the constructs. Additionally, we checked that these marker items presented low correlations to the chosen items for our original theoretical model. We then included the marker items as additional latent variables in our model and analysed their impact on all endogenous variables (Liang et al., 2021; Rönkkö and Ylitalo, 2011). The results of the marker variable test are presented in Table 9. The path coefficients for direct effects and indirect paths suggest that there are no major differences in estimations with and without marker variables. Thus, common method bias can be ruled out in our study.

5.2 Evaluation of structural (inner) model

We employed a bootstrapping technique with resampling (5,000 subsamples) (Hair et al., 2018) to estimate the statistical significance of the hypothesised model. Next, we used a systematic approach to assess the results of the structural model and examine its predictive capabilities and the relationships between the constructs (Hair et al., 2014).

5.2.1 Path coefficients for the structural model

In the present study, the values of path coefficient (β) exist in the range of 0.620 to −0.090 (p < 0.10). The result found all proposed hypotheses significant except H4c (β = 0.064, t = 1.204, p < 0.10); this hypothesis proposed the relationship between psychological empowerment and subjective well-being, which is found insignificant. In comparison, two hypotheses (H1b and H5a) are found to be significant (p < 0.05). Other hypotheses (H1c, H2, H3, H4a, H4b, H5b, H5c, H8 and H9) are found to be highly significant (p < 0.001). The results for all hypotheses with the path coefficients are given in Table 10.

5.2.2 Analysis of the mediating effect

We performed the mediation analysis for the proposed six hypotheses, H6a – H6c and H7a – H7c, based on guidelines provided by Zhao et al. (2010) and Nitzl et al. (2016) (see Table 11). The result shows that five (i.e. H6a, H6b, H7a, H7b and H7c) out of the six hypotheses were accepted. Next, we checked for both complementary and competitive mediation effects based on the signs of the direct and indirect paths. Hypotheses H6b and H7b reported a complementary mediation, whereas the rest (H6a, H7a and H7c) reported a competitive mediation (see Table 12).

5.2.3 Coefficient of determination (R² value)

The coefficient of determination (R² value) measures the predictive accuracy of the structural model (Hair et al., 2018; Henseler et al., 2014). The coefficients of determination (R²) values are 0.570 for PTP, 0.401 for TS and 0.378 for SWB, respectively, indicating high and moderate predictive accuracy. This result reflects that the structural model developed in the study has predictive relevance.

5.2.4 Effect size f²

In addition to assessing the R² values of all endogenous constructs, we evaluated the change in R² when we eliminated a specified exogenous construct from the model. The predictive effect of virtuality on performance, satisfaction and well-being (0.015, 0.026 and 0.059) was found to be relatively low (f² < 0.15), indicating low implications on R². In contrast, the effects of virtuality on psychological empowerment and conflict management (0.174 and 0.155) were moderate (0.15 < f² < 0.35). The impacts of both of these mediators, i.e. psychological empowerment on satisfaction (0.183 and psychological empowerment on conflict management (0.136), showed moderate effects. In addition, the effect of satisfaction on performance (f² = 0.535) was high, while the considerably moderate impact on well-being (f² = 0.234) implies for R² value.

5.2.5 Blindfolding and predictive relevance Q²

The predictive relevance Q² values (Stone–Geisser test) of endogenous variables PTP, TS and SWB were 0.440, 0.333 and 0.284, respectively. However, all these values were above zero, confirming that the structural model exhibited predictive relevance for all outcome variables, i.e. team performance, satisfaction and subjective well-being. Further, the root mean square residual (RMSR) value was 0.081, less than the criteria of 0.10; hence, the model showed a good fit.

6. Discussion of the results

6.1 Effect of virtuality on team outcomes

This study finds that virtuality affects all three outcomes. It negatively affects perceived team performance (β = −0.090, p < 0.10). Hence, H1a is not supported because we have hypothesised the positive impact of virtuality on performance (Table 12). The negative influence could be a high dependency on technology such as video conferencing, instant messaging and email for communication, which can limit nonverbal cues and create communication barriers such as misunderstandings and misinterpretations. These barriers can negatively impact team members' ability to collaborate effectively and may decrease perceived team performance. This finding echoes De Guinea et al. (2012), who reported that the relationship between virtual teams and performance could be found in both directions, i.e. positive and negative. However, the relationship can also depend on the context and the “task” (i.e. task complexity and interdependence). Recent studies by Handke et al. (2021) and Costa et al. (2021) have identified that contrary to previous findings, interdependence can play an important role in virtual teams. While we measured perceived virtuality as a second-order construct with the help of team distribution, workplace mobility and variety of practices, Schaubroeck and Yu (2017) argue that a virtual team's core characteristics (such as skill differentiation and temporal stability) will differentially affect the opportunities presented by a virtual team. The growing popularity of the metaverse (Cheng et al., 2022; Dwivedi et al., 2022; Peukert et al., 2022; Shiau and Huang, 2023) also supports the idea of this study in measuring the performance of virtual teams with the effect of virtuality measured by team distribution, workplace mobility and variety of practices.

Next, we found that virtuality positively influences individuals' team satisfaction (β = 0.138, p < 0.05); hence, H1b is supported by the results. It may be because virtual teams may allow individuals to work with diverse team members, regardless of geographical location, leading to opportunities for exposure to different perspectives, experiences and cultures, which can increase their team satisfaction. These findings align with previous studies (De Guinea et al., 2012; Handke et al., 2021; Rogers et al., 2021), affirming that the virtual team environment positively affects an individual's satisfaction with the team. In addition, the only empirical study that comes closest to ours by adopting team satisfaction as an outcome (see Table 1) is by Rogers et al. (2021). By applying the IMO framework, they also found the positive effect of team processes towards team satisfaction within VTs. Our finding is also congruent with Dulebohn and Hoch (2017). They identified two levels of outcome – first, team level (such as team performance) and second, individual outcomes (such as team-member satisfaction). In addition, if teams choose to work virtually, managers might encourage occasional face-to-face meetings to improve team satisfaction (Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010). On the contrary, few scholars also find conflicting effects of virtuality on team satisfaction. Stark and Bierly (2009) find that relationship conflict has a more toxic effect on team satisfaction with increasing virtuality. Further, using “virtual world” tools such as metaverse (Cheng et al., 2022; Dwivedi et al., 2022; Peukert et al., 2022; Shiau and Huang, 2023) also highlight the importance of team satisfaction in conducting tasks, such as training, performance evaluation and team-building exercises across virtual teams.

Next, we assessed the impact of virtuality on an individual's satisfaction towards life (subjective well-being) and found a negative relationship among them. However, we have proposed a positive effect of virtuality on the individual's well-being (β = −0.215, p < 0.01); therefore, H1c is not supported by the results. The reason could be a high dependency on ICT for communication and collaboration in virtual teams, creating a sense of social isolation. The lack of face-to-face interaction may result in disconnection and a reduced sense of belonging among team members. Furthermore, the absence of physical proximity may reduce emotional support and positive feedback, leading to decreased motivation and lower subjective well-being. In addition, virtual teamwork is not suitable for all; people working in virtual teams may respond differently at different team development phases. Few scholars have also identified similar unfavourable effects of virtual work on the well-being of employees. Villamor et al. (2023) found that increased virtuality in the workplace could jeopardise the subjective well-being of the women workforce. Palgi et al. (2020) found that loneliness has been a major health issue during the COVID-19 pandemic, making VT team members more susceptible to depression, anxiety and comorbidity. On the contrary, Doyle and Conboy (2020) proposed a selection of “liquid modernity” theoretical principles, which showed an implicit positive effect of remote work and telecommuting on workers' subjective well-being. Abelsen et al. (in press) examined the role of task and technology fit on work performance and the psychological well-being of workers. They noted that designing ICTs based on “task–technology fit” makes individuals less likely to experience feelings of loneliness and enjoy improved psychological well-being.

6.2 Effect of virtuality on psychological empowerment and conflict management

We also find that virtuality positively affects psychological empowerment (β = 0.385, p < 0.01); hence, H2 is supported. It may be because VTs are flexible work arrangements that provide individuals with more autonomy over their work, increasing their sense of control over their work environment and leading to higher psychological empowerment. These findings align with previous studies such as Kirkman and Rosen (1999) and Kirkman et al. (2004), who reported that virtual teams are empowered workplaces, and the employees possessed a high sense of psychological empowerment, leading to a positive impact on team performance. Further, Hill et al. (2014) found that the relationship between leader-member exchange in virtual teams and psychological empowerment is moderated by the degree of electronic communication (i.e. virtuality). Similarly, He et al. (2014) examined the negative effect of competition on team empowerment across hybrid-virtual teams of IT firms in Taipei, while team empowerment fostered knowledge-sharing and flexibility.

Next, we find that virtuality positively affects conflict management (β = 0.321, p < 0.01); thereby, H3 is supported. As we know, VTs are more task-oriented structures with greater anonymity for team members, which can help reduce tensions during conflicts and encourage formal communication, leading to more effective conflict resolution. Also, relationships within virtual teams are more professional as compared to collocated teams. These findings align with previous studies such as Paul et al. (2004a) and Paul et al. (2004b). They reported that group heterogeneity affects collaborative conflict management style, leading to team performance outcomes (such as satisfaction with the decision-making process, perceived decision quality, perceived participation and group agreement). Kankanhalli et al. (2006) found that the volume of electronic communication, functional diversity and cultural diversity affected task and relationship conflicts, affecting team performance. In contrast, Martínez-Moreno et al. (2015) used content analysis of chat messages and found that team feedback about processes improved conflict management in virtual teams. However, our findings contradict De Jong et al. (2008), who found that conflict management in virtual teams was less effective than in face-to-face groups.

6.3 Mediating roles of conflict management and psychological empowerment

The results from mediation analysis suggest that five were accepted among the six hypotheses we proposed (i.e. H6a, H6b, H7a, H7b and H7c). However, the indirect effect of PE →SWB was non-significant (β = 0.064, p > 0.05), so H6c was not supported. Hence, we can conclude that the proposed mediation does not exist. Based on the direct and indirect paths, we found both mediation effects (i.e. complementary and competitive mediation) in our study (see Table 11). Hypotheses H6b and H7b were found to have a complementary mediation, where the mediation of psychological empowerment and conflict management between virtuality and team satisfaction was proposed. These results support the proposed relationships and the theory that both mediators facilitate the team satisfaction of an individual working in virtual teams. The existence of complementary mediation demonstrated that feelings of a sense of empowerment and the existence of cordial interpersonal relationships have a positive impact on the virtual environment on an individual's team satisfaction. In their comprehensive literature review, Rapp et al. (2021) identified team psychological empowerment as a cognitive team emergent state. Extant literature on VTs has also identified psychological empowerment as a mediator between inputs and outcomes such as participative goal setting and team outcomes (Lee and Wei, 2011); agile antecedents and innovative behaviour of employees (Malik et al., 2021); team-directed leadership and organisational citizenship (Li et al., 2017). Further, VT literature has also presented the effects of psychological empowerment towards team outcomes, such as a sense of task motivation to increase team performance (Seibert et al., 2011), increased team engagement to influence the project outcomes (Mills et al., 2020); organisational empowerment climate and employee service quality (Lin et al., 2017). Extant literature on VTs has shown that conflict management successfully mediates between team inputs and team outcomes, such as commitments to team goals and perceived performance satisfaction (Pazos, 2012). Gilson et al. (2015) found that conflict management has been used as a mediator that adversely affected team processes and outcomes.

The rest of the hypotheses (H6a, H7a and H7c) reported competitive mediation effects. From H6a, we found that an individual's high sense of psychological empowerment increases team performance by decreasing the negative impact of virtuality or mitigating the negative effects of virtuality by enhancing communication and collaboration among team members. While the results of H7a and H7c demonstrate that well-managed conflict within virtual teams facilitates better interpersonal processes that suppress the direct negative effects of virtuality on an individual's performance and the sense of well-being. By addressing conflicts constructively, VTs can facilitate better interpersonal processes, improving team performance and member satisfaction. Paul et al. (2004a) and Paul et al. (2004b) have reported similar effects while studying the effects of conflict management towards the outcome measure (in a team or group), such as collaborative conflict management style to increase decision-related outcomes (i.e. satisfaction, perceived quality, perceived participation and agreement).

6.4 Effect of team satisfaction on other team outcomes

In addition, our study also examined the effect of individual team satisfaction on the remaining team outcomes, i.e. perceived team performance and subjective well-being. The proposed relationship between team satisfaction and perceived team performance (H8: β = 0.620, p < 0.01) demonstrated a high impact within virtual teams. Thus, satisfied employees are more engaged and productive. Extant literature on VTs has reported similar findings. Stark and Bierly (2009) found that relationship conflict has a more toxic effect on team satisfaction with increasing virtuality among teams. Jeanquart Miles and Mangold (2002) found that the team leaders' performance influenced team satisfaction. Gilli et al. (2022) found that average satisfaction within the team leads to higher performance across teams and individuals. Cavazotte et al. (2020) examined the effects of team satisfaction on team performance, leading to positive customer satisfaction.

Next, our study finds that team satisfaction catalyses an individual's affective reaction, i.e. an employee's well-being. This finding was supported by the results from the proposed relationship between team satisfaction and subjective well-being (H9: β = 0.493, p < 0.01). Therefore, individuals satisfied with the virtual team as their current work environment are happy in their everyday lives. While team satisfaction is an important metric for virtual teams (Gilson et al., 2015; Handke et al., 2021), team success needs to be measured by performance indicators (i.e. team performance) as well as by subjective well-being (Gilli et al., 2022). On the contrary, conflict at work is detrimental to an individual's well-being (De Dreu et al., 2004). Finally, the growing popularity of using “virtual world” platforms such as AR/VR and metaverse across virtual teams also highlight the importance of team satisfaction across the performance outcomes of VTs – i.e. team performance and subjective well-being. For instance, Shiau and Huang (2023) examine the fit and integration of a game's virtual world and reality from the perspective of information systems. While these novel tools can enhance performance evaluation across virtual teams, they also need real applicability and fitment.

7. Implications of this study

7.1 Theoretical implications

This study makes three major theoretical contributions. First, we theorised and tested the mediating roles of behavioural team processes (i.e. conflict management) and emergent states (i.e. psychological empowerment) on the combined effects of (1) perceived virtuality and affective outcomes (i.e. team satisfaction and subjective well-being); (2) perceived virtuality and effectiveness outcomes (i.e. perceived team performance). Existing research on the virtuality of teams focuses mainly on the following as inputs to the IMO framework: leadership (e.g. Andressen et al., 2012; Han et al., 2018); team-related characteristics (e.g. Algesheimer et al., 2011; Holtz et al., 2020; Malik et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2018) and individual characteristics and skills (e.g. Fuller et al., 2016; Rosen et al., 2015; Rogers et al., 2021; Zhang and Guo, 2019). Therefore, our findings add to the existing body of literature on VTs (see Table 1 and Table 2), where a few studies have examined VTs with the IMO framework using virtuality as input (measured by team distribution, workplace mobility and variety of practices) and include the mediating effects of both behavioural team processes (i.e. conflict management) and emergent states (i.e. psychological empowerment) leading to affective and effectiveness outcomes.

Second, our paper theorises and empirically tests the relationships between perceived virtuality and team outcomes (i.e. both affective and effectiveness). It also examines the effect of team satisfaction on the other two forms of team outcomes (i.e. perceived team performance and subjective well-being). We add to the limited literature in this domain (Handke et al., 2021; Purvanova and Kenda, 2022). Handke et al. (2021) studied team virtuality as input, perceived virtuality as a mediator, and task performance and satisfaction as outputs. In contrast, Purvanova and Kenda (2022) identified virtuality as a significant negative input to team effectiveness. Handke et al. (2021) also suggested that future scholars need to provide an empirical measure of how “virtual” a team perceives itself to be. Purvanova and Kenda (2022) also emphasise that results obtained from non-organisational studies could not be generalised or may have non-generalisability effects. However, these insights have not been formalised in theoretically-based research models or tested empirically. In this regard, we integrated the future research directions proposed by Handke et al. (2021) and Purvanova and Kenda (2022).

Third, while most scholars studied virtual teams in the context of developed economies (Baralou and Dionysiou, 2022; Lin and Roan, 2021), this study makes a humble attempt to examine VTs in emerging economies. Hence, this study may be considered an early endeavour offering an exploratory lens to examine virtual teams in Indian IT organisations. Findings from this study add to the literature (Handke et al., 2021; Purvanova and Kenda, 2022) about how individuals (working in virtual teams) perceive those virtual teams as workplaces (i.e. empowered or powerless) with the intervention of appropriate conflict management techniques to reach successful team performance outcomes across emerging economies such as India.

7.2 Managerial implications

The findings of this study also provide implications for managers in organisations who manage team members and task deliveries across virtual teams, especially in emerging market economies. First, virtuality (comprised of workplace mobility, team distribution and variety of practices) within a team can be characteristic of today's workplace, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic [5]. Therefore, managers overseeing team members in VTs are keen to observe their effectiveness outcomes (such as team and individual member performance). Thus, managers in VTs need to apprehend ways and mechanisms to champion the cause of employees and bring out their best performances. Our findings also suggest likewise: when virtuality alone cannot wield a strong and positive influence over the perceived team performance of individuals working in VTs, psychological empowerment will mediate their relationship and make it stronger and effective (see H1a versus H6a). Often, such techniques may include supporting the employees to understand their competencies, meaning, self-determination and impacts of their job roles (Spreitzer, 1995). In addition to virtuality in teams, empowerment may also involve job enlargement (increasing the horizontal scope of the employee's job role); job enrichment (increasing the vertical depth of the employee's job role); relevant training; access to decision-making information and display of confidence of the manager(s) towards the team member to undertake greater responsibilities [6].

Second, managers who engage with employees in virtual teams must also look at their affective outcomes (such as team satisfaction and subjective well-being). And, so, managers in VTs need to take care of the team satisfaction of individuals working in those VTs. Findings from our study also support their actions. Although virtuality and team satisfaction enjoy a positive and significant and positive relationship, psychological empowerment mediates their relationship and strengthens it (see H1b versus H6b). Often, organisational activities to improve team satisfaction in conjunction with psychological empowerment may involve the satisfaction of an individual while working with team members, the satisfaction of an individual while working within a team, or how pleased was an individual in the way they worked together with the team members (Tekleab et al., 2009). Managers conduct virtual learning activities and training within the organisation and sometimes allow sick employees to attend office duties virtually online, if possible, when commuting is challenging [7]. In addition, if teams choose to work virtually, managers might encourage occasional face-to-face meetings to improve team satisfaction (Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010). On the contrary, virtuality does not significantly influence the subjective well-being of individuals working in VTs. The mediation of psychological empowerment also does not improve this relationship (see H1c vs H6c).

Third, the findings from our study regarding the mediating effects of conflict management are also interesting. Although virtuality and team satisfaction enjoy a positive and significant and positive relationship, conflict management complementary mediates their relationship and makes it even stronger (see H1b vs H7b). Often, members in virtual teams employ different techniques to manage conflicts, such as whether a conflict is dealt with openly within the virtual team, or if a conflict arises on the virtual team, the members involved in the conflict initiate steps to resolve the conflict immediately, and finally, whether the team can avoid the negative aspects of conflict before they occur (Tekleab et al., 2009). Similarly, perceived virtuality significantly influences the subjective well-being of individuals working in VTs, and the partial mediation of conflict management also improves this relationship (see H1c vs H7c). This finding is important for managers in VTs because they must organise organisational activities to resolve the conflict in VTs. These activities may increase an individual's satisfaction while working with VT members or increase the satisfaction of an individual while working within a team, improving overall subjective well-being within a VT.

Fourth, the findings from our study may also help HR managers to design more effective solutions in the industry space of “virtual worlds” platforms such as metaverse and AR/VR (Cheng et al., 2022; Dwivedi et al., 2022; Peukert et al., 2022; Shiau and Huang, 2023). After the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a growing demand for hybrid work across corporates. Many startups, such as Vastly [8] and Party Space [9], are creating video games for team-building exercises for remote and virtual teams and fun events for large groups with a live host. The offerings have quickly become popular with international technology giants such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Waymo and Adobe. While our study identifies a few important findings, they can be useful in designing effective and interactive solutions in the virtual space, keeping in mind the importance of psychological empowerment and conflict management as mediators while enumerating the final performance outcomes of a virtual team.

8. Conclusions and future research directions

Despite the recognised importance of virtual teams in the growth of contemporary business organisations, the present study aims to explore virtual teams in an emerging economy and adds to the literature in this domain (Handke et al., 2021; Purvanova and Kenda, 2022). Virtuality is a multidimensional construct that can be understood through discontinuities arising from virtual teams (Watson-Manheim et al., 2002, 2012). The findings of this study suggest that to reap the advantages of virtual teams (i.e. performance, team satisfaction and well-being), managers and organisations ought to develop good team behaviours (i.e. processes) and encourage positive empowerment instead of merely focusing on outcomes. One way to accomplish this objective is by actively engaging in interventions that empower teams. The study's findings have general implications for virtual teams and human-technology interfaces (Vidolov, 2022). The study also helps widen our understanding of the various psychological variables associated with teamwork in virtual teams. The study will be valuable in implementing and developing well-functioning, sustainable virtual collaboration across organisations. These findings will greatly aid in assessing the consequences of virtual teamwork at both individual and organisational levels.

Despite these interesting findings, our study has a few limitations. First, the study was conducted by collecting data only once. Hence, future research can adopt a longitudinal design that may help explore any temporal effects in virtual teams. Second, the current research engaged with respondents who represented the work culture of a single country (i.e. India). Therefore, future studies may examine onsite and offshore knowledge workers as members of global virtual teams and then examine cross-cultural effects within them. Third, the study primarily concerned an individual as the “unit of analysis” in a virtual team. Future studies may consider a virtual team as the “unit of analysis” and examine its interplays.

Figures

Figure 1

Proposed hypothesised model

Figure 2

Steps involved in empirical analysis

Table 1

Summary of Type I literature on VTs employing the IMO theoretical framework (Empirical Studies)

Study	Theory	Method/Sample	Input	Process/Emergent state (mediator)	Outcome			Findings
					Performance	Satisfaction	Well-being
This study	IMO	Survey of 315 IT professionals from India	Perceived virtuality	Conflict management and Psychological Empowerment	✓	✓	✓	Perceived virtuality impacts team outcomes, i.e. perceived team performance, team satisfaction and subjective well-being. Perceived team satisfaction has a high positive impact on the other two team outcomes
Algesheimer et al. (2011)	IMO	606 professional online gaming teams	Team demography, past team performance	Shared decision to perform, shared goals to perform	✓	–	–	Team processes have a strong effect on both rational and emotional dimensions of strategic team consensus
Andressen et al. (2012)	IMO	681 employees and 116 team leaders in 129 teams	Transformational leadership, self-leadership	Motivation, self-leadership	✓	–	–	Influence of self-leadership on motivation in virtual work structures versus collocated work structures
Fuller et al. (2016)	IMO and MST	Quasi-experimental study/22 virtual project teams	Individual Characteristics —CMC Anxiety	Virtual Team Participation —Quantity and Quality	✓	–	–	Individuals with higher levels of CMC anxiety participated less and were rated more poorly by team members on their performance compared to those with lower levels of CMC anxiety
Hsu et al. (2017)	IMO and Control theory	Survey/220 IS practitioners	Control mechanisms (Formal control and Clan control)	Team-member behaviours (In-role behaviour and Extra-role behaviour)	✓	–	–	Formal control and clan control affect project performance by enhancing behaviours
Wei et al. (2018)	IMO, AST	Survey of 263 participants from Malaysian Global Business Services	Team cohesion, confidence, knowledge, skills, and abilities	Trust, creativity	✓	–	–	Impact of team climates on human dimensions (mediators) which affect team performance. Virtuality did not have a significant moderating effect on these relationships
Han et al. (2018)	IMO	Survey of 158 students	shared leadership	coordination, goal commitment and knowledge sharing	✓	–	–	Shared leadership positively affected coordination activities, goal commitment and knowledge sharing, which in turn positively affect team performance
Zhang and Guo (2019)	IMO and MIP-G theory	Survey of 96 Cross-functional project teams	Knowledge diversity	Knowledge leadership, transactive memory system	✓	–	–	Knowledge leadership is a crucial factor that can explain the inconsistency between knowledge diversity and CFPT performance
Holtz et al. (2020)	IMO and SIP theory	Experiments with 41 virtual teams of 164 students	Team Emotional Management	Team synergy and Motivation	✓	–	–	Training enhances the ability to identify and use resources, thus enabling the virtual team to increase performance
Malik et al. (2021)	IMO and JCM	Agile project managers and team members in Australia	Team autonomy, diversity, agile communication	Psychological empowerment	✓	–	–	Relationship between agile practices and the work-related psychological states experienced by agile teams
Rogers et al. (2021)	IMO	997 students nested across 242 project teams in the US university	Peer Skills, Peer Interactions	Team processes	–	✓	–	Teams overcome virtuality to perform effectively. Team-embedded members react differently across virtual teams and face-to-face contexts

Note(s): IMO = Input–mediator–output; AST = Adaptive Structuration Theory; MST = Media Synchronicity Theory; MIP-G = Motivational information processing in groups theory; SIP= Social information processing theory; CMC = computer-mediated communication; CFPT = cross-functional project teams; JCM = job characteristic model

Source(s): Author's own creation

Table 2

Summary of Type II literature on VTs employing the IMO theoretical framework (Reviews and Meta-analyses)

Study	Theory	Method/Sample	Input	Process/Emergent state (mediator)	Outcome	Important findings
Klotz et al. (2014)	IMO	LR of new venture teams (42 empirical articles)	–	–	–	Role of affect in NVTs; how team climates emerge and how these climates affect team performance
Yang (2014)	IMO	LR	Membership-based swift trust	Team member exchange – (dis)confirmation, emotions, process-based trust	Team outcomes	A framework for understanding the role of (dis)confirmation and subsequent emotions during the process of trust update and of team development
Coultas et al. (2014)	IMO	LR of 259 articles	–	–	–	Better measurement of emergent states using an evolved construct or relevant item wordings
Rosen et al. (2015)	IMO	LR of teamwork literature within healthcare	Team composition, characteristics, context	Action, transition, interpersonal processes	Effectiveness, learning outcomes	Contribution of sensor-based measurement for improving organizational learning in healthcare
Maynard et al. (2015)	IMO	LR of team adaptation literature	Team adaptability	Team adaptation	Adaptive performance	A team's adaptation process is impacted by the type and severity of the disruption or trigger that gives rise to the need for adaptation
Courtright et al. (2015)	IMO	Meta-analysis on task and outcome interdependence with 262 articles	Structural task and outcome interdependence	Team functioning	Team performance	Task and outcome inter dependence are conceptually distinct and have differential effects on team performance
Maloney et al. (2016)	IMO	LR of field research on teams (published 2004–2013) 271 articles	Team external context as “input”	Team external context as “mediator”	Team external context as “output”	Guidelines to improve contextualization and avenues to explore context theorising in work teams
Dulebohn and Hoch (2017)	IMO	LR	–	–	–	Two levels of outcomes – first, team level (such as team performance); second, individual outcomes (such as satisfaction, commitment)
Schulze and Krumm (2017)	IMO	LR	Team member KSAOs; personality traits	Team mediators such as trust	–	Derive an integrative framework of virtual teamwork to address virtuality-related challenges
Rosen et al. (2018)	IMO	LR of empirical and narrative reviews in health care (published 2000 and 2017)	Team member attributes, team structure, organisational context	Interpersonal processes; affective and cognitive emergent states	Team member wellbeing; staff retention; financial outcomes	Improve teamwork among health care workers to manage workforce challenges
Takács and Juhász (2018)	IMO and theory of human performance	Conceptual integrative model	Team adaptation (Trigger)	Adaptation (Task execution and team mental models)	Standard performance and group efficacy	Adaptation (performance and collective efficacy)
Shuffler et al. (2018)	IMO	LR of articles on TDI (514 articles)	Team inputs (such as task analysis, work designs, and team charters)	Performance monitoring and assessment	Team debriefs	Distinguishing features that make for an effective TDI
Handke et al. (2021)	IMOI	Conceptual integrative model	Team virtuality, familiarity, design	Team Process, perceived virtuality	Task performance, satisfaction	Individual characteristics converge into a team-level property
Handke et al. (2022)	IMO	LR of 59 studies published between 1991 and 2020	Team input feedback	Team mediator feedback	Team output feedback	Virtual teams benefit from performance-related feedback that targets the entire team

Note(s): IMO = Input–mediator–output; IMOI = Input–mediator–output–input; AST = Adaptive Structuration Theory; MST = Media Synchronicity Theory; MIP-G = Motivational information processing in groups theory; SIP= Social information processing theory; LR= Literature Review; NVT = new venture teams; KSAO = appropriate knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics; TDI = team development intervention

Source(s): Author's own creation

Table 3

Demographic characteristics of the respondents (n = 315)

Characteristic	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	177	56.19
	Female	138	43.80
Age group (in Years)	Less than 25	42	13.33
	26–35	130	41.27
	36–45	96	30.48
	46–55	38	12.06
	>55	09	02.86
Educational level (Highest)	Bachelors	184	58.41
	Masters	92	29.21
	Doctorate	06	01.90
	Others	33	10.48
Work experience (in Years)	Less than 3	46	14.60
	3–6 Years	152	48.25
	6–10 Years	62	19.68
	10–15 Years	34	10.79
	>15 Years	21	06.67
Virtual teamwork experience (in Years)	Less than 3	83	26.35
	3–6 Years	136	43.17
	6–10 Years	54	17.14
	>10 Years	42	13.33
Company size (No of employees)	Less than 500	0	0
	501–1000	07	02.22
	1001–5000	11	03.49
	5001–10000	62	19.68
	>10,000	238	75.56

Source(s): Author's own work

Table 4

Measurement model

Constructs	Source	Indicators	Mean	SD	Loadings	Cronbach alpha	C.R.	AVE
Team Distribution (TD)	Chudoba et al. (2005)	TD_1	4.70	2.218	0.902	0.898	0.930	0.770
		TD_2	4.85	2.226	0.925
		TD_3	4.80	2.138	0.934
		TD_4	4.21	2.333	0.736
Workplace Mobility (WM)	Chudoba et al. (2005)	WM _1	3.57	2.332	0.672	0.788	0.855	0.542
		WM_2	4.39	2.168	0.796
		WM_3	5.20	1.836	0.758
		WM _4	3.92	2.065	0.681
		WM _5	5.18	1.949	0.764
Variety of Practices (VOP)	Chudoba et al. (2005)	VOP _1	3.75	1.980	0.878	0.911	0.944	0.850
		VOP _2	4.02	2.138	0.953
		VOP _3	4.19	2.105	0.934
Conflict Management (CM)	Tekleab et al. (2009), Pazos (2012)	CM_1	5.67	1.157	0.605	0.772	0.855	0.600
		CM_2	5.41	1.139	0.826
		CM_3	5.21	1.205	0.827
		CM_4	5.17	1.226	0.818
Perceived Team Performance (PTP)	Cohen and Bailey (1997), Cox (2003), Song et al. (2006), Mortensen and Hinds (2001), De Jong et al. (2008)	PTP_1	5.71	1.443	0.879	0.945	0.958	0.819
		PTP_2	5.75	1.393	0.904
		PTP_3	5.55	1.472	0.922
		PTP_4	5.62	1.474	0.907
		PTP_5	5.78	1.345	0.913
Psychological Empowerment (PE)	Spreitzer (1995)	PE_1	5.81	1.132	0.672	0.934	0.944	0.586
		PE_2	5.97	1.026	0.706
		PE_3	5.93	1.068	0.739
		PE_4	5.83	1.346	0.898
		PE_5	5.86	1.249	0.955
		PE_6	5.41	1.367	0.754
		PE_7	5.44	1.279	0.792
		PE_8	5.35	1.425	0.700
		PE_9	5.98	1.025	0.811
		PE_10	5.89	1.078	0.680
		PE_11	5.86	1.136	0.775
		PE_12	5.96	1.097	0.641
Team Satisfaction (TS)	Tekleab et al. (2009)	TS_1	5.21	1.389	0.947	0.934	0.958	0.884
		TS_2	5.18	1.327	0.954
		TS_3	5.15	1.553	0.919
Subjective Well-being (SWB)	Pavot and Diener (1993)	SWB_1	4.55	1.722	0.810	0.945	0.957	0.817
		SWB_2	4.70	1.491	0.940
		SWB_3	4.81	1.494	0.939
		SWB_4	4.65	1.571	0.927
		SWB_5	4.31	1.742	0.897

Note(s): C.R.-Composite Reliability, AVE-Average Variance Extracted

Source(s): Author's own work

Table 5

Cross-loading examination of the constructs

	CM	PE	PTP	TS	SWB	TD	WM	VOP
CM_1	0.605	0.259	0.272	0.336	0.268	0.127	0.218	0.221
CM_2	0.826	0.210	0.282	0.313	0.324	0.192	0.220	0.292
CM_3	0.827	0.276	0.334	0.383	0.343	0.179	0.225	0.266
CM_4	0.818	0.316	0.455	0.448	0.372	0.194	0.276	0.328
PE_1	0.150	0.672	0.269	0.308	0.144	0.204	0.251	0.241
PE_2	0.230	0.706	0.315	0.337	0.178	0.249	0.264	0.248
PE_3	0.239	0.739	0.286	0.300	0.128	0.215	0.205	0.223
PE_4	0.347	0.898	0.489	0.525	0.283	0.308	0.356	0.344
PE_5	0.332	0.955	0.521	0.543	0.322	0.296	0.349	0.304
PE_6	0.389	0.754	0.466	0.486	0.341	0.357	0.389	0.333
PE_7	0.291	0.792	0.487	0.461	0.325	0.256	0.322	0.245
PE_8	0.286	0.700	0.447	0.400	0.398	0.138	0.203	0.176
PE_9	0.222	0.811	0.336	0.386	0.186	0.280	0.288	0.266
PE_10	0.162	0.680	0.259	0.344	0.171	0.242	0.213	0.219
PE_11	0.196	0.775	0.324	0.343	0.147	0.250	0.292	0.283
PE_12	0.208	0.641	0.275	0.292	0.224	0.214	0.253	0.252
PTP_1	0.389	0.447	0.879	0.669	0.439	0.254	0.256	0.221
PTP_2	0.433	0.467	0.904	0.650	0.466	0.238	0.265	0.213
PTP_3	0.411	0.431	0.922	0.647	0.524	0.156	0.151	0.198
PTP_4	0.377	0.460	0.907	0.666	0.554	0.115	0.143	0.112
PTP_5	0.404	0.493	0.913	0.683	0.521	0.260	0.269	0.232
TS_1	0.453	0.518	0.706	0.947	0.523	0.338	0.299	0.318
TS_2	0.433	0.506	0.708	0.954	0.558	0.330	0.299	0.271
TS_3	0.483	0.476	0.652	0.919	0.498	0.349	0.364	0.384
SWB_1	0.230	0.158	0.362	0.352	0.810	−0.065	0.006	0.027
SWB_2	0.411	0.355	0.572	0.570	0.940	0.017	0.125	0.067
SWB_3	0.465	0.376	0.559	0.575	0.939	0.058	0.143	0.157
SWB_4	0.448	0.279	0.486	0.526	0.927	−0.010	0.102	0.083
SWB_5	0.300	0.246	0.468	0.442	0.897	−0.019	0.071	0.064
TD_1	0.185	0.269	0.201	0.336	0.037	0.902	0.500	0.628
TD_2	0.220	0.363	0.227	0.371	0.058	0.925	0.517	0.624
TD_3	0.266	0.355	0.240	0.343	0.022	0.934	0.535	0.701
TD_4	0.099	0.147	0.115	0.191	−0.134	0.736	0.579	0.454
WM_1	0.180	0.158	0.111	0.211	0.118	0.466	0.672	0.533
WM_2	0.294	0.342	0.223	0.271	0.118	0.587	0.796	0.598
WM_3	0.245	0.263	0.192	0.278	0.025	0.662	0.758	0.568
WM_4	0.235	0.280	0.208	0.229	0.133	0.452	0.681	0.560
WM_5	0.174	0.330	0.152	0.258	0.028	0.681	0.764	0.505
VP_1	0.326	0.214	0.167	0.266	0.139	0.620	0.512	0.878
VP_2	0.343	0.374	0.238	0.341	0.074	0.640	0.475	0.953
VP_3	0.332	0.363	0.193	0.344	0.051	0.656	0.583	0.934

Source(s): Author's own work

Table 6

Fornell–Larcker matrix for discriminant validity

	AVE	CM	PE	PTP	SWB	TD	TS	VOP	WM
CM	0.600	0.775
PE	0.586	0.347	0.765
PTP	0.819	0.446	0.508	0.905
SWB	0.817	0.427	0.327	0.553	0.904
TD	0.770	0.226	0.332	0.228	0.005	0.878
TS	0.884	0.485	0.532	0.733	0.560	0.360	0.940
VOP	0.850	0.362	0.345	0.217	0.095	0.693	0.344	0.922
WM	0.542	0.306	0.378	0.242	0.109	0.643	0.341	0.648	0.736

Source(s): Author's own work

Table 7

Results of multicollinearity for the first-order construct

Second-order construct	First-order construct	Tolerance value	VIF
Perceived virtuality	TD	0.280	3.565
	WM	0.237	4.213
	VOP	0.427	2.344

Source(s): Author's own work

Table 8

Results of the second-order formative constructs

Second-order construct	Path	Path coefficient (β)	t-stat	p-value	Significant
Perceived Virtuality (PV)	TD→ PV	0.391	30.234	0.000***	Yes
	WM→ PV	0.368	33.290	0.000***	Yes
	VOP→ PV	0.330	25.565	0.000***	Yes

Note(s): Levels of significance are as follows *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

Source(s): Author's own work

Table 9

Comparison of the results using Marker Variables

		Survey		Survey + marker
		Path Coeff	p-value	Path Coeff	p-value
Direct Paths
H1a	PV→PTP	−0.090	0.091*	−0.095	0.086*
H1b	PV→TS	0.138	0.014**	0.115	0.018**
H1c	PV→SWB	−0.215	0.000***	−0.2224	0.009***
H2	PV→PE	0.385	0.000***	0.380	0.000***
H3	PV→CM	0.321	0.000***	0.311	0.000***
H4a	PE→PTP	0.174	0.000***	0.180	0.0086***
H4b	PE→TS	0.371	0.000***	0.386	0.000***
H4c	PE→SWB	0.064	0.223	0.075	0.235
H5a	CM→PTP	0.113	0.023**	0.118	0.030**
H5b	CM→TS	0.312	0.000***	0.322	0.001***
H5c	CM→SWB	0.232	0.000***	0.221	0.000***
H8	TS→PTP	0.620	0.000***	0.655	0.000***
H9	TS→SWB	0.493	0.000***	0.467	0.0095***
	MV→PE	–	–	0.018	0.486
	MV→CM	–	–	0.025	0.485
	MV →PTP	–	–	−0.034	0.433
	MV →TS	–	–	0.004	0.890
	MV →SWB	–	–	0.001	0.669
Indirect Effects
H6a	PV→PE→ PTP	0.154	–	0.166	–
H6b	PV→PE→ TS	0.281	–	0.264	–
H6c	PV→PE→ SWB	0.239	–	0.211	–
H7a	PV→CM→ PTP	0.124	–	0.110	–
H7b	PV→CM→ TS	0.238	–	0.246	–
H7c	PV→CM→ SWB	0.288	–	0.313	–
	PV→ MV → PTP	–	–	0.016	–
	PV→ MV → TS	–	–	0.004	–
	PV→ MV → SWB	–	–	0.011	–
	PV→ MV → PTP	–	–	0.012	–
	PV→ MV → TS	–	–	0.002	–
	PV→ MV → SWB	–	–	0.004	–

Note(s): Levels of significance are as follows *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01; MV = Marker Variable

Source(s): Author's own work

Table 10

Results for structural model evaluation

Hypothesis	Path		Coefficient	t-stat	p-value	Significant
H1a	Relationship between virtuality and team performance	PV→PTP	−0.090	1.693	0.091*	Yes
H1b	Relationship between virtuality and team satisfaction	PV→TS	0.138	2.446	0.014**	Yes
H1c	Relationship between virtuality and subjective well-being	PV→SWB	−0.215	4.752	0.000***	Yes
H2	Relationship between virtuality and psychological empowerment	PV→PE	0.385	7.771	0.000***	Yes
H3	Relationship between virtuality and conflict management	PV→CM	0.321	6.306	0.000***	Yes
H4a	Relationship between psychological empowerment and team performance	PE→PTP	0.174	3.804	0.000***	Yes
H4b	Relationship between psychological empowerment and team satisfaction	PE→TS	0.371	6.062	0.000***	Yes
H4c	Relationship between psychological empowerment and subjective well-being	PE→SWB	0.064	1.204	0.223 (NS)	No
H5a	Relationship between conflict management and team performance	CM→PTP	0.113	2.266	0.023**	Yes
H5b	Relationship between conflict management and team satisfaction	CM→TS	0.312	5.993	0.000***	Yes
H5c	Relationship between conflict management and subjective well-being	CM→SWB	0.232	4.257	0.000***	Yes
H8	Relationship between Team satisfaction and Team Performance	TS→PTP	0.620	11.791	0.000***	Yes
H9	Relationship between Team satisfaction and subjective well-being	TS→SWB	0.493	8.140	0.000***	Yes

Note(s): Levels of significance are as follows *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

Source(s): Author's own work

Table 11

Results for mediating effects

Path		Direct path coefficient (β)			Indirect effect			Total effect	VAF	Mediation type
		a	b	c	a x b	SE	t-stat
H6a	PV→PE→ PTP	0.385	0.174	−0.090	0.067	0.019	3.509	0.154	0.435	Partial Mediation (Competitive Mediation)
H6b	PV→PE→ TS	0.385	0.371	0.138	0.143	0.029	4.944	0.281	0.509	Partial Mediation (Complementary Mediation)
H6c	PV→PE→ SWB	0.385	0.064	−0.215	0.025	0.022	1.162	0.239	0.105	No Mediation
H7a	PV→CM→ PTP	0.321	0.113	−0.090	0.036	0.018	2.134	0.124	0.290	Partial Mediation (Competitive Mediation)
H7b	PV→CM→ TS	0.321	0.312	0.138	0.100	0.021	4.870	0.238	0.420	Partial Mediation (Complementary Mediation)
H7c	PV→CM→ SWB	0.321	0.232	−0.215	0.074	0.022	3.407	0.288	0.257	Partial Mediation (Competitive Mediation)

Source(s): Author's own work

Table 12

Summary of the results

Hypothesis		Status
H1a	Virtuality will positively influence perceived team performance of individuals' working in virtual teams	Not Supported
H1b	Virtuality will positively influence team satisfaction of individuals' working in virtual teams	Supported
H1c	Virtuality will positively influence the subjective well-being of individuals' working in virtual teams	Not Supported
H2	Virtuality will positively influence the psychological empowerment of employees working in virtual teams	Supported
H3	Virtuality will positively influence the conflict management process within virtual teams	Supported
H4a	Psychological empowerment will positively influence perceived team performance of individuals' working in virtual teams	Supported
H4b	Psychological empowerment will positively influence team satisfaction of individuals' working in virtual teams	Supported
H4c	Psychological empowerment will positively influence the subjective well-being of individuals' working in virtual teams	Not Supported
H5a	Conflict management will positively influence the perceived performance of individuals' working in virtual teams	Supported
H5b	Conflict management will positively influence team satisfaction of individuals' working in virtual teams	Supported
H5c	Conflict management will positively influence the subjective well-being of individuals' working in virtual teams	Supported
H6a	Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between virtuality and perceived team performance	Supported
H6b	Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between virtuality and team satisfaction	Supported
H6c	Psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between virtuality and subjective well-being	Not Supported
H7a	Conflict management will mediate the relationship between virtuality and perceived team performance	Supported
H7b	Conflict management will mediate the relationship between virtuality and team satisfaction	Supported
H7c	Conflict management will mediate the relationship between virtuality and subjective well-being	Supported
H8	Team satisfaction will positively influence the perceived team performance of individuals' working in virtual teams	Supported
H9	Team satisfaction will positively influence the subjective well-being of individuals' working in virtual teams	Supported

Source(s): Author's own work

Table A1

Details of the item(s) for each construct in our study

Constructs	Indicators	Items
Team Distribution (TD)		How frequently do you …
	TD_1	Collaborate with people across different time zones
	TD_2	Work with people via Internet-based conferencing applications
	TD_3	Collaborate with people you have never met face-to-face
	TD_4	Collaborate with people who speak different languages
Workplace Mobility (WM)		How frequently do you …
	WM_1	Work on the sites of different companies
	WM_2	Interact professionally with people outside your own Organisation
	WM_3	Work with mobile devices/technology-enabled devices
	WM_4	Work at home during normal business days
	WM_5	Work while travelling, for example, at airports, hotels, etc.
Variety of Practices (VOP)		How frequently do you …
	VOP _1	Work on projects on which the team members changed with the passage of time
	VOP _2	Work with teams that have different methods to track their work
	VOP _3	Work with people that use different collaboration methods
Conflict Management (CM)		I feel that in my team …
	CM_1	Conflict is dealt openly
	CM_2	If a conflict arises, the people involved in the conflict initiate steps to resolve it immediately
	CM_3	Team members know what to do when conflicts between team members arise
	CM_4	Team members are able to avoid the negative aspects of conflict before it may occur
Perceived Team Performance (PTP)		I feel that the team …
	PTP_1	Works efficiently
	PTP_2	Performs quality work
	PTP_3	Attains technical innovation
	PTP_4	Adheres to schedule/budge
	PTP_5	Attains work excellence
Psychological Empowerment (PE)		I feel that … …
	PE_1	The work I do is very important to me
	PE_2	My work activities are personally meaningful to me
	PE_3	The work I do is meaningful to me
	PE_4	I am confident about my ability to do my jobs
	PE_5	I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities
	PE_6	I have mastered the skills necessary for my job
	PE_7	I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job
	PE_8	I can decide on my own how to proceed with my work
	PE_9	I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job
	PE_10	I have a large impact on what happens in my department
	PE_11	I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department
	PE_12	I have significant influence over what happens in my department
Team Satisfaction (TS)	TS_1	I am satisfied with the contributions made by the other members of my virtual team
	TS_2	I am satisfied with the climate within my virtual team(s)
	TS_3	I would be interested to work in the current virtual team(s) in the future
Subjective Well-being (SWB)		To what extent do you feel …
	SWB_1	In most ways, my life is close to my ideal
	SWB_2	The conditions of my life are excellent
	SWB_3	I am satisfied with my life
	SWB_4	So far, I have gained the important things I wanted in life
	SWB_5	If I could live my life, again, I would change almost nothing

Source(s): Questionnaire items adopted from various studies

Notes

1. Twitter feed from Richard Branson: https://twitter.com/richardbranson/status/435376261603393537

2. State Of Remote Work 2020: https://buffer.com/state-of-remote-work/2020

3. Remote Workers and Rest: https://amerisleep.com/blog/remote-workers-and-rest/

4. SHRM Research Reveals Negative Perceptions of Remote Work: https://www.shrm.org/about-shrm/press-room/press-releases/pages/-shrm-research-reveals-negative-perceptions-of-remote-work.aspx

5. Work From Home Is The New Normal For Workers Around The World: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timbajarin/2021/04/29/work-from-home-is-the-new-normal-for-workers-around-the-world/

6. What is employee empowerment? https://asq.org/quality-resources/employee-empowerment

7. My virtual agile team experience: https://www.mckinsey.com/careers/meet-our-people/mckinsey-women-blog/my-virtual-agile-team-experience

8. From the Home Office to the Metaverse: Vastly is Pioneering the Future of Remote Team Building and Beyond: https://www.remoteteambuilding.io/

9. https://www.party.space/virtual-team-building/