An Investigation of the Antecedents and Consequences of Group-Level Confidence

An Investigation of the Antecedents and Consequences of Group-Level Confidence’

CYNTHIA LEE* CATHERINE H. TINSLEY College qfBusinrss Administration The McDonough School of Business

Northeastern University Georgetown University

PHILIP BOBKO Depurtment qf Manugement

Cettyshurg College

To examine the power of group confidence, the nomological network of group potency (generalized confidence) and group efficacy (task-specific confidence) is detailed. These constructs are embedded in a causal model including both antecedent and consequent variables. Results obtained within a collective cultural context suggest that group cohesion and group norms are antecedents to group confidence, and task performance and satisfaction are consequences. The empirical effects for group potency were robust, but those for group efficacy were surprisingly nonsignificant. This study shows that generalized confidence (group potency) is a stronger predictor of group outcomes than is group efficacy when the group members are unfamiliar with the complex tasks at hand. Implications for futurc research and group training are noted.

Today’s business environment consists of flattened hierarchies and self- management (Cohen & Ledford, 1994). Another organizational trend toward the self-managing team, which arises in response to the competitive challenges of the past two decades (Cohen & Ledford, 1994), suggests that the notion of group- level constructs deserve increased study.

The construct of group e#icacy, or a group’s collective sense of capability, might be an important determinant of group effectiveness (Bandura, 1986; Gibson, 1999; Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993). However, unlike the robust positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance found at the individual level of analysis, the group-level relationship between group efficacy and

‘A portion of Cynthia Lee’s work on this manuscript was conducted while she was a visiting pro- fessor in the Department of Management of Organizations, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. A portion of Philip Bobko’s work on this manuscript was conducted while he was at the Department of Management. Syracuse University.

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cynthia Lee, 304 Hayden Hall, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02 I 15. E-mail: [email protected]

1628

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002, 32, 8, pp. 1628-1652. Copyright 0 2002 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

GROUP CONFIDENCE 1629

group performance is less consistent. Gibson, for example, found that group efficacy relates positively to group effectiveness only when task uncertainty is low, team members work interdependently, and collectivism is high. Moreover, her research indicates that, unlike self-efficacy, group efficacy is not always an asset to groups. This suggests to us that perhaps it is necessary to add another variable (group potency) that assesses a group’s sense of its capabilities to further explain group performance.

Group efficacy, like self-efficacy, has been operationalized as a task-specific construct. Yet, both individuals and groups also have more generalized notions about their abilities. As Eden and Kinnar (1991) noted, individuals have task- specific beliefs about one’s future achievement in specific, ability-related situations and generalized beliefs about self-competence in achievement situations in general. Similarly, at the group level, the generalized efficacy beliefs are reflected in the notion of group potency (Guzzo et al., 1993). Although past research has called this general notion of ability generalized esteem (cf. Eden, 1990; Eden & Kinnar, 199 l), here we use the term group potency to mean beliefs about general ability and restrict group efficacy to mean beliefs about task specific ability. Together, we label the task-specific group efficacy and the generalized group potency beliefs as group confidence. In this paper, we examine the relative importance of these two forms of group confidence on group outcomes, and we also examine two antecedents of group confidence in order to begin understanding how a group might develop these confidence variables.

Individual-Level Constructs

At the individual level, self-eflcacy is defined as:

people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of perfor- mances. It is concerned not with the skills one has but with the judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses. (Bandura, 1986, p. 391)

Notions of self-efficacy are thought to influence self-regulation, or the way in which people control and direct their own actions (Markus & Wurf, 1987). Spe- cifically, positive beliefs of self make individuals set challenging goals and believe in their abilities to achieve these standards (Bandura, 1986; Locke & Latham, 1990). As a result, individuals might expend more effort to attain the goals than would individuals with low self-efficacy. Studies show self-efficacy to be a powerful force regulating individual-level performance, and the mechanism through which self-efficacy seems to operate is by impelling an individual to expend more energy on a given task.

1630 LEE ET AL.

In individuals, general self-efficacy, or self-esteem (which would be the individual analog to our group potency) is concerned with beliefs about self- competence in achievement situations in general (Eden, 1990). Eden suggests that self-esteem is the product of a lifetime of experience. Tipton and Worthington (1 984) argued that task-specific self-efficacy should explain more variance in performance when the situation is clearly defined and familiar to the individual. However, in ambiguous situations that are less familiar to the individual, general self-esteem should account for more explained variance in performance. Using a self-determination and a behavioral self-control task, they found that participants with higher self-esteem scores expended more effort, persevered longer, or changed more than did participants with lower general self-esteem scores. Eden and Kinnar (1991) studied a situation of mixed ambiguity. The ambiguity of the situation was mixed in that the candidates (experimental participants) had never been in the Special Forces service branches for which they were being encour- aged to volunteer. However, they had been informed about various aspects of service in the branches. Therefore, both general self-esteem and task-specific self- efficacy were expected to explain unique proportions of variance in the partici- pant’s willingness to volunteer for a Special Forces service. These predictions were confirmed, whereby general self-esteem explained variance on the more ambiguous dimensions and task-specific efficacy explained variance on the more defined dimensions.

Group-Level Constructs

Although self-esteem and self-efficacy influence individual-level performance, these confidence constructs might also operate at the group level. Despite Bandura’s ( 1986) recognition that collective efficacy might influence performance, his call for the development of suitable tools to measure collective efficacy has been met with scarce results. Further, the relative importance of different types of group-level confidence has not been adequately assessed. Group efficacy is a very task-specific construct (Bandura, 1986), whereas a more generalized notion of a group’s capabilities might also enhance a group’s performance.

The present study attempts to demonstrate the power of group confidence and tests two different ways of operationalizing group confidence (efficacy and potency). Here, the issue is not whether an individual’s confidence can influence his or her own behavior, but whether group members’ confidence can influence each other’s collective behavior and in turn, a group’s performance. The confident beliefs about the ability to perform and the energy that is generated by these beliefs must transcend individuals to the group level. Can group members have such profound effects on each other‘! Moreover, are there ways of operationalizing group confidence to capture not just task-specific judgments, but additionally more general notions of a group’s power or capability?


In this study, group confidence is conceptualized as a link between antecedent group structure (the tightness vs. looseness of a group) and group outcomes. We measure group confidence with both task-specific group efficacy and more general group potency. We consider two antecedents of group confidence (cohesion and norms) and also examine the relative contribution of facets of group confidence to the outcomes of group performance and satisfaction.

As noted earlier, group efficacy indexes a group’s perceptions of its ability to achieve varying levels of results of a specific task. It is “reflected in judgments about group capabilities to make decisions, to enlist supporters and resources, to devise and carry out appropriate strategies, and to withstand failures and repris- als” (Bandura, 1986, p. 451). Grouppotency, on the other hand, refers to a shared belief about effectiveness across multiple tasks encountered by groups in complex environments (Guzzo et al., 1993). That is, whereas group efficacy is the perception of a group’s ability to perform certain specific behaviors, group potency is the generalized confidence that concerns a group’s overall performance abilities. Group potency, as a generalized confidence construct, would be similar to generalized self-esteem (GSE) at the individual level, which is the belief about self-competence and achievement in situations in general (Eden & Kinnar, 1991).

Antecedents of Group Efficacy and Group Potency

According to Bandura (1 977) and Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, and Zazanis (1995), past performance is an important influence on a group’s sense of efficacy. Success fosters a belief in work groups that they can be effective in the future (Hackman, 1990; Sayles, 1958). For example, Kane, Marks, Zaccaro, and Blair (1993) found that a wrestling team’s record in the previous two seasons was related to individual wrestler’s perceptions of group efficacy at the beginning of the season. They also found that team camp performance was related to generalized collective efficacy.

Although past performance appears to influence a group’s subsequent confidence (i.e., group efficacy and task performance), this antecedent creates a cycli- cal relationship: Group efficacy and potency enhance task performance, which in turn enhances group efficacy and potency, and so forth. Aside from the methodological difficulties of testing a nonrecursive model (James, Muliak, & Brett, 1982), we are less interested in Lindsley et al.3 (1995) ideas of how a cybernetic loop might escalate once group efficacy, potency, and performance are present.3 Rather, we are more interested in those antecedents, apart from group efficacy, potency, and performance, that might lead to the development of all three. We think that these types of variables (which are external to the performance-

3For this, please refer to the ideas of Lindsley, Brass, and Thomas (1995)

1632 LEE ET AL.

confidence spiral) might be of more practical use, as they suggest what might need to be altered by managerial intervention in order to enter the cybernetic loop in the first place. This implies that early task performance is not used as an antecedent variable, but rather is included as a control.

We suggest that the tightness of a group will influence its beliefs about its power and abilities. Recall our prior logic that in order for group confidence to influence a group’s performance, members’ expectations must affect not only their own behavior but also each other’s behavior. Individual beliefs about the group’s abilities and power must pass between members, transcending individuals and creating group-level attitudes and behaviors. Thus, the tighter the group as an entity, the more likely it is that individual members’ beliefs will affect each other to create group-level attitudes about efficacy and potency, and thus increase group performance. To examine how a group’s tightness enhances efficacy, potency, and ultimately performance, we measured both the group’s cohesion and the extent to which group norms were shared across members.

Regarding cohesion, in a study of volleyball teams, Spink (1990) found that group cohesion was an important factor associated with task-specific group efficacy. We also look at a group’s norm strength as an antecedent because as group cohesion increases, there should be greater acceptance concerning what the group’s norms are. Norms are mental models that regulate behavior (McGrath, 1984), and strong norms imply that members can exert more influence over each other than if the group had weak norms. If people feel they can exert normative pressure over group members, they are likely to believe they can make the group more productive. Thus, norm strength should enhance confident thinking. Simi- larly, Lindsley et al. (1 995) related social identity theory to collective efficacy. They suggested that if identification with the group increases commitment to group values and norms, collective efficacy will increase as identification increases. Hence, as members’ perceptions on the strength of a group’s norms increase, so too will their perceptions of a group’s efficacy and potency.

We highlight here that these antecedents are internal to the group, and independent of a group’s actual task-based skills and resources. We would argue these antecedents are therefore of practical value, because groups can develop these antecedents on their own, regardless of any actual skills, resources, or prior group performance. Formally stated,

Hypothesis I . Group cohesion and the strength of a group’s norms will be positively related to both group efficacy and group potency.

Consequences of Group Confidence: Task Performance and Satisfaction

Prior research has suggested that both task-specific group efficacy and general group potency beliefs might influence task performance. At the individual


level, self-efficacy relates to higher performance goals, more planning, strategy development, and increased performance (Locke & Latham, 1990), with similar influences expected at the group level (Mesch, Farh, & Podsakoff, 1989; Weldon & Weingart, 1988, 1993). For example, Mesch et al. reported substantial associations of group efficacy with group goals and performance. Further, Hodges and Carron (1992) reported that, after failing on a muscular endurance task, groups with high collective efficacy improved their subsequent performance, while groups with low collective efficacy exhibited lower performance. In Hodges and Carron’s study, collective efficacy was manipulated as bogus feedback to the three-member groups, indicating that their total group scores were substantially superior to those of the confederate group. However, as noted previously, it is highly feasible that the positive association between group efficacy and task performance is moderated by levels of task uncertainty (see prevous discussion of Gibson, 1999).

Regarding group potency, Guzzo et al. (1991) reported that potency was positively related to measures of service to others inside the organization and of service to customers. Additionally, Shea and Guzzo (1987) found that potency was positively correlated with team customer-service effectiveness. Similarly, Campion, Medsker, and Higgs ( 1993) found positive correlations between potency and group productivity, satisfaction, and managerial judgments of effectiveness in a large financial service company.

Although both group efficacy and group potency appear to affect performance, one difficulty with this stream of research is the confusion between beliefs about performance, and the actual skills, resources, and talents necessary for performance. In other words, groups whose members possess a variety of skills, resources, and talents might rate themselves more efficacious than do groups with low skills. So, when a high skill group performs better, is it because of the group members’ high skills or because they believed in themselves more? We attempt to control for this confusion by measuring efficacy, potency, and performance at two points in time. We then test whether a group’s second measure of efficacy and potency accounts for the group’s actual performance at Time 2, controlling for the group’s task performance at Time 1. This way we can test the much stronger proposition of whether or not positive thought enhances performance above and beyond how a group might perform naturally, given its skill set.

Second, when a high skill group performs better, it might be because they are confronted by a familiar task. In a novel task situation, the task-specific concept of group efficacy might be unrelated to performance (Gibson, 1999). However, group potency might be positively related to task effectiveness because group potency refers to the shared belief about effectiveness across multiple tasks encountered by the group in complex environments (Guzzo et al., 1993). There- fore, we predict the following:

1634 LEE ET AL.

Hypothesis 2. Group potency (at Time 2) will be positively related to task performance on a novel task (at Time 2), even when Time 1 task performance is controlled. However, group efficacy will be unrelated to task performance on a novel task.

It should be noted that there are two important components to group performance: task performance and group maintenance (Ancona, 1993). In order for the group to qualify as successful, they must both accomplish the tasks set before them and also manage the interpersonal environment, keeping it harmonious and conflict-free. We suggest that group potency will assist the group in performing general maintenance activities because group-maintenance activities are generalized behaviors that transcend the nature of any given tasks. A group has been suc- cessfully maintained when members express positive general feelings about group interaction, such as their enjoyment from working as a group and their satisfaction with group life. Because these activities are non-task-specific, they should be less influenced by a group’s task-specific esteem than they are by a group’s general sense of potency. In other words, the level of specificity of the group-efficacy construct is not congruent with the level of specificity of the group-maintenance activities. Therefore, we would predict less correlation between these two constructs than between group potency and group maintenance since these latter two constructs have the same level of generality (cf. H u h , 199 1, on the importance of congruence between levels of specificity when assessing constructs).

Hypothesis 3. Group potency will be positively related to and will account for more variance in task satisfaction than will group efficacy.

Figure I shows the relationship across constructs in the first three hypotheses. A group’s tightness (cohesion and norm strength) should relate positively to a group’s positive thinking (efficacy and potency), which in turn should enhance a group’s outcomes (task performance and satisfaction). We also expect that potency will be the stronger correlate of task performance and satisfaction when groups work on novel tasks.

We offer one final hypothesis as an additional check on the validity of our two focal constructs (group efficacy and group potency). Eden and Kinnar (1991) argued that group potency is the product of a host of experiences; it is less amen- able to change under short-lived conditions. Group potency results after the group has been through many different experiences. In contrast, task efficacy levels can be raised by specific training (Eden & Kinnar, 1991; Gist, 1989; Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991), past performance, vicarious learning, emotional arousal, and verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1977)


norms

Figure I . Nomological framework for group-level confidence.

with relatively little effort. This suggests that, over time, there should be less dif- ference in levels of group potency and relatively larger changes in task-specific group efficacy levels as a result of, for example, performance feedback (particu- larly early in a group’s life). Thus, as a hypothesis on the construct validity of our two positive thought constructs, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 4. Average levels of group efficacy will demonstrate a greater change between Time 1 and 2 than will group potency.

Group Confidence and Performance in a Collective Cultural Context

Recent researchers have called for expanding psychological research to non- Western context and samples. For example, Ho (1991) suggested that behavior invariably takes place in relational contexts. Thus, Western psychology (in which the unit of analysis is primarily the individual) might be missing important behavioral determinants. This bias toward an individual unit of analysis might explain why research on collective efficacy has lagged behind Bandura’s (1986) call for action.

We believe that our hypotheses (because of the logic and prior research on which they are derived) can be applied to most cultural contexts. On the other hand, because individualistic cultures have proven to be rich contexts in which to examine individual-level relationships, we propose that collective contexts might be useful contexts to initially examine group-level relationships because collective contexts are characterized by group identity (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and group work (Gabrenya, Latane, & Wang, 1981). This does not imply that group- level relationships will not be present in an individualistic culture. Indeed, group work and identity have been documented among American samples (Cohen & Ledford, 1994). We believe that any results we find are likely to generalize to an

1636 LEE ET AL.

individualistic context, yet these group-level relationships might be more readily available for study in a collective culture (Triandis, 1996). Therefore, we have selected a sample high on cultural collectivism in which to test our hypotheses about group confidence. Although we fully expect our results to generalize to other cultural contexts (and note that most U.S. research on U.S. samples tends to take this assumption as a given), we do measure individual variance on collectivism and include this measure as a control in our analyses.

Method

Sample and Procedure

Participants were 175 (1 06 female, 59 male, 10 participants who did not indicate their gender) Hong Kong second-year undergraduate students enrolled in four sessions of an organizational behavior course. The students were informed that they were part of a research study. We obtained their consent to be included in the study. The students were ethnic Chinese, and their average age was 20 years. The students were required to work together on two group projects during the 15-week semester. Each group project accounted for 20% of the students’ final course grade. Each group member received the same group grade. Students had worked in several student group projects from other courses prior to attend- ing this course. The sample of 175 students worked in mixed-gender groups of 5 to 8 individuals (27 groups in total), randomly assigned by the instructor. Because of missing values, we deleted 1 1 of the 175 cases. The final sample consisted of 164 students.

The first group project consisted of evaluating leadership effectiveness using two public figures. Students were instructed to apply, discover, combine, or invent a theory of leadership that would account for the successes of their chosen public figures. Student groups submitted their written analyses for a group grade. Student papers were graded relative to other groups in the same session or class on the appropriateness and application of leadership theories in explaining the leaders’ successes. Upon completion of the first group project (seventh week) but before they had received their group grades, students were asked to complete the group efficacy, group potency, group norms, and group cohesion questionnaires on Project 1. With the exception of the measure of the group’s rating of group efficacy discussion method (GED), all questions were measured at the individual level.

The second group project was conducted at the beginning of the eighth week. In the second project, student groups were asked to explore the importance of fairness in the workplace on work motivation by interviewing people working in various organizations. While the first assignment asked students to be analytical (based on reading material) and creative, this second assignment required


students to use completely different sets of skills. The objectives were for students to discover unfair incidents in various organizations and to find out what people were most concerned about (e.g., pay fairness, promotion opportunities, the chance to voice their opinions on important issues). Student groups were asked to follow a categorizing scheme provided by the instructor (cf. Mikula, Petri, & Tanzer, 1990). Group members were instructed to interview employees, synthesize results, diagnose causes, brainstorm proscriptions, and deliver a syn- opsis of all these efforts to the class in an organized and creative presentation.

This timing was purposive, so that students had feedback from doing the task but before performance feedback was given. The feedback that students had was their own assessments of how well their group had worked; the formal feedback to be given later was the instructor’s assessment of their performance (group grade with explanation). Wood and Locke (1987) recommended this timing because students will have some information about their ability to cope with the project demands, yet will not base their ratings simply on their grades. With the exception of group task satisfaction, as in the first project, students were asked to complete the group efficacy, group potency, group norms, and group cohesion questionnaires on Project 2.

Measures

Antecedents. We measured group cohesion (COH) using a five-item scale taken from Staw (1 984) and Price and Mueller (1 986) that was modified for the student project group context. The five items are: “How well do members of your group get along with each other?”; “How well do members of your group stick together (i.e., remain close to each other)?”; “Would you socialize with the members of your group outside the class?”; “How well do members of your group help each other on the project?”; and “Would you want to remain a member of this group for future projects or in future courses?” Each item used an 1 1-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 11 (extremely well/certainly). Cronbach’s alphas for the scale were .80 for Project 1 and .86 for Project 2.

Group norm was measured using a three-item scale developed and validated by Cohen, Ledford, and Spreitzer (1996). The scale items are: “Our group has clear standards for the behavior of group members”; “It is clear in our group what is acceptable behavior, and what is not acceptable”; and “Behavior in our group is very orderly; it is clear what members are expected to do, and they do it.” This scale was administered using an 1 1-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree completely) to 11 (agree completely). Alpha coefficients were .81 and .89 for Projects 1 and 2, respectively.

Group coilfidence constructs. Group potency (GPOT) was measured using two items from a three-item scale developed and validated by Campion et al. (1 993). The items are: “Members of my group have great confidence that the

1638 LEE ET AL.

group can perform effectively,” and “My group can take on nearly any task and complete it.” The item “My group has a lot of team spirit” was deleted because it bears conceptual similarity with group cohesion. This measure was rated on a 5- point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Coefficient alphas were 3 7 and .91 for Projects 1 and 2, respectively.

We used two different methods to assess group efficacy in order to reflect the differences of opinion in the current literature regarding the measurement of this construct. The first method is referred to as the aggregate method by Gibson, Randel, and Earley (2000). This method (group efficacy aggregate, GEA), with a group referent, was used by Earley (1 993) based on the scale format developed by Locke, Frederick, and Bobko ( 1 984) at the individual level. Group members rate their perception of their group’s capability for each specific level of performance. Ratings on these performance levels are averaged for each individual, and then individuals’ scores are averaged across the group. Specifically, group members were asked to indicate if they could achieve a certain level of attainment on their first group project (Yes or No) as well as their degree of confidence in their ability to perform at that level (on a scale from 0% to 100%). We used a total of six items (e.g., “My group will get at least a passing mark on this final project”; “My group will get an A on this final project”). As recommended by Lee and Bobko (1994), self-efficacy composites (GEAI for Project 1 and GEA2 for Project 2) were computed using confidence ratings only for levels that students felt they might obtain (i.e., a Yes response). The coefficient alphas for the confidence ratings were .78 and .72 for Projects 1 and 2, respectively.

The second group efficacy measure is referred to as the group @cacy discussion method (GED) by Gibson et al. (2000). Specifically, each group was provided with a single response form and instructed to arrive at a group response based on group discussion and interaction (cf. Gibson, 1995; Lindsley et al., 1995). Upon completing the efficacy scale using the aggregate method, the students were asked to complete the efficacy ratings one more time as a group. The GED measure was inadvertently assessed only for Project 2. This omission did not substantially affect our analytic capabilities because our main focus was on the Project 2 measure, as GED is an outcome index. There is no alpha for Project 2 GED because, by definition, there is only one score per group.

Outcomes. Group task satisfaction consisted of a five-item scale that we developed for our group project context. The five items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Sample items are: “To what extent did you enjoy working with this group?’; “To what extent did you like this group?”; and “To what extent did the group meet all of your expectations?” The alpha coefficient for this measure was 3 5 .

The second outcome measure, task performance, was assessed using group project scores. Student groups received points for each group project from the instructor, and these scores were standardized for each of the four classes.


Controls. Previous task performance has been conceptualized by Bandura ( 1977, 1986) as an antecedent of self-efficacy. Therefore, as noted earlier, Project 1 task performance was used as a control in our regression analyses. In addition, group size was also used as a control since our group sizes ranged from 5 to 8 people. We based this consideration on Kerr’s (1989) finding that self-efficacy declines with group size. Further, the group dynamics literature suggests that larger groups might suffer from problems related to control and coordination, resulting in lower performance (cf. Smith et al., 1994). Finally, an individualism- collectivism variable was added to measure its effects. We measured individualism-collectivism using the first factor of Wagner’s (1995) measure. The alpha coefficient was .7 1 for this five-item scale, which was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Low scores reflect high collectivism, and high scores reflect high individualism.

Level of Analysis

In addition to the theoretical rationale for the group-level creation of our target variables, various statistics often recommended in the literature were computed to evaluate the appropriateness of aggregation. ANOVAs with group as the independent variable and the target measures as the dependent variables were used to determine between-group differences and therefore within-group similarity (Prussia & Kinicki, 1996). Each of the one-way ANOVAs (one for each of the variables to be aggregated) was significant at (p < .01) using the F statistic. The only exception was GEA I , which was significant at p < .05. As well, we computed Burke, Finkelstein, and Dusig’s (1999) average deviation index (ADI), which resulted in values that ranged between 0.45 and 0.72 for the 5-point scales, and between 1.09 and I . 19 for the 1 1 -point scales. The critical values for this index are 0.83 and 1.83 for the 5-point and 1 I-point scales, respectively (Burke et al., 1999). Thus, there is an adequate level of agreement on these scales to jus- tify averaging to the group level. Since GED2 was measured at the group level, we did not need to conduct an ANOVA or calculate a Burke et al. AD1 on this variable. The percentage of variance explained by group membership (h*) ranged from .23 to .48, suggesting more within-group than between-group agreement. With the statistically significant differences in variables across groups, we felt comfortable in analyzing measures at the group level.

Results

In order to confirm that our latent constructs (e.g., cohesion, norms) were adequately measured in our sample, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.12a (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). To judge the fit of our theoretical model we relied on the comparative fit index (CFI) and the incremental fit

4

Q,

P

Tabl

e 1

0

r

rn

rn

rn

4

D

!-

Cor

rela

tions

Am

ong

Posi

tive

Thin

king

Mea

sure

s, A

ntec

eden

ts, a

nd O

utco

mes

Mea

sure

M

SD

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10

11

1. G

POT1

7.

99

0.87

(.8

7)

2. G

POT2

8.

04

1.05

.5

4**

(.91)

3.

GEA

l 39

9.74

72.

63

.16

-.04

(.78)

4.

GE

M

450.

54

52.8

7 .3

9*

.08

.34

(.72)

5.

GED

2 50

5.42

60.

01

-.03

.05

-.25

-.17

-

6. C

OH

l 8.

11

0.84

.9

1**

.48*

-.0

2 .2

7 -.1

2 (.8

0)

7. C

OH

2 7.

92

0.95

.6

3**

.85*

* -.0

7 .1

2 -.0

1 .6

7**

(.86)

8.

NO

RM

l 7.

59

0.82

.7

6**

.48*

.0

2 .2

2 -.0

1 .6

4**

.47*

(.8

1)

9. N

ORM

2 7.

50

0.97

.5

9**

.90*

* -.1

1 -.0

4 .0

8 .5

4**

.87*

* .6

0**

(.89)

10

. G

SAT2

3.

78

0.41

.6

3**

.91*

* -.0

2 .1

8 .0

7 .5

7**

.82*

* .5

1**

.88*

* (.8

5)

11.

GPR

Ol

0.00

0.

99

-.28

.27

-.24

.29

-.08

-.23

.16

-.27

.06

.19

-

12.

GPR

02

0.00

0.

99

-.01

.47*

-.0

8 .0

8 -.1

7 .0

5 .4

5*

.05

.36

.46*

.3

5

Not

e. N

= 2

7 gr

oups

. Dat

a ag

greg

ated

by

grou

ps.

GPO

Tl a

nd G

POT

2 =

gro

up p

oten

cy f

or P

roje

cts

1 an

d 2,

resp

ectiv

ely;

GEA

l an

d G

EA2

= in

divi

dual

’s ra

ting

of g

roup

eff

icac

y (a

ggre

gatio

n m

etho

d) fo

r Pro

ject

s 1

and

2, r

espe

ctiv

ely;

GED

2 =

gro

up’s

ratin

g of

gro

up

effic

acy

(dis

cuss

ion

met

hod)

for P

roje

ct 2

; CO

Hl a

nd C

OH

2 =

cohe

sion

for P

roje

cts

1 and

2, r

espe

ctiv

ely;

NO

RM

l and

NO

RM

2 =

gro

up

norm

for P

roje

cts

1 an

d 2,

resp

ectiv

ely;

GPR

Ol

and

GPR

02 =

grou

p pe

rfor

man

ce fo

r Pro

ject

s 1

and

2, re

spec

tivel

y; G

SAT2

=gr

oup

task

sa

tisfa

ctio

n fo

r Pro

ject

2. T

he n

umbe

rs in

par

enth

eses

are

alp

ha c

oeff

icie

nts.

*p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1.

Tabl

e 2

Hie

rarc

hica

l Reg

ress

ions

for

Tim

e 2

Gro

up C

onfid

ence

Mea

sure

s

Gro

up po

tenc

y G

roup

effic

acy

(GEA

) G

roup

eff

icac

y (G

ED)

Step

p

AR

2 m

p

AR

2 AF

p A

R2

AF

1 G

roup

per

form

ance

, Tim

e 1

.43*

* .0

8 0.

60

.31t

.2

5 2.

31f

-.13

.07

0.53

G

roup

size

-.0

7 .2

8 0.

10

Indi

vidu

alis

m*o

llect

ivis

m

-.13

-0.4

2*

.22

2 G

roup

cohe

sion

, Tim

e 1

.33

.39

6.90

**

.25

.19

3.18

t -.1

6 .0

2 0.

19

Gro

up n

orm

, Tim

e 1

.40f

.2

6 0.

04

Gro

up si

ze

.04

.21

0.16

1

Gro

up p

erfo

rman

ce, T

ime

1 .1

5 .0

8 0.

60

.14

.24

2.31

t -.

08

.07

0.53

0

Indi

vidu

alis

m*o

llect

ivis

m

-.03

-.34

0.18

X

I

Gro

up n

orm

, Tim

e 2

.71*

* -.4

0 .3

4 0 s 2 2

-0

2 G

roup

cohe

sion

, Tim

e 2

.23

.80

62.3

7**

.46

.04

0.58

-.2

7 .0

3 0.

26

Not

e. N

= 2

7 gr

oups

. GEA

= ag

greg

ation

met

hod;

GED

= gr

oup

disc

ussi

on m

etho

d. L

ow s

core

s ind

icat

e col

lect

ivis

m, h

igh

scor

es in

dica

te

1

indi

vidu

alis

m.

rn

U

Z

tp <

.lo.

*p <

.05. **

p < .0

1.

A

ua

Tabl

e 3

A

Q,

P

h)

h

rn

rn

Task

per

form

ance

Ta

sk s

atis

fact

ion

4

Hie

rarc

hica

l Reg

ress

ions

for

Tim

e 2 O

utco

mes

p St

ep

P A

R2

AF

P A

R2

AF

1 G

roup

per

form

ance

, Tim

e 1

.29

.30

3.36

* -.0

3 .0

9 0.

76

Gro

up si

ze

-.I5

-.

lo

Indi

vidu

alis

m+o

llect

ivis

m

-.38*

-.

lo

2 G

roup

pote

ncy,

Tim

e 2

.40*

.1

5 5.

85*

.92*

* .7

5 12

1.54

**

1 G

roup

per

form

ance

, Tim

e 1

Gro

up si

ze

Indi

vidu

alis

m+o

llect

ivis

m

.44*

.3 1

3.36

* .1

9 .0

9 0.

76

-.I7

-.2

8 -.4

2*

.01

2 G

roup

eff

icac

y, T

ime

2 (a

ggre

gatio

n met

hod)

-.1

4 .o 1

0.

46

.2 1

.03

0.81

1

Gro

up p

erfo

rman

ce, T

ime

1 .3

9?

.30

2.99

* .2

1 '0

9 0.

68

Gro

up si

ze

-.2 1

-.2

7 In

divi

dual

ism

<olle

ctiv

ism

-.3

67

-.lo

2

Gro

up ef

ficac

y, T

ime

2 (g

roup

dis

cuss

ion m

etho

d)

-.04

.oo

0.04

.1

4 .0

2 0.

40

Not

e. N

= 2

7 gr

oups

. Hig

h sc

ores

indi

cate

indi

vidu

alis

m, l

ow s

core

s ind

icat

e co

llect

ivis

m.

tp <

.lo.

*p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1.


index (IFI) because these indexes take into account the comparison of a test model to a baseline model (Gerbing & Anderson, 1993). We separated our data into Time 1 and Time 2 items so that the first CFA (Time 1) specified a three- factor model (for group cohesion, group norms, and group potency), and the second CFA (Time 2) specified a four-factor model among the perceptual measures (cohesion, norms, potency, and satisfaction). Both the CFI and the IF1 indicated acceptable fit for our theoretical factor structures (.92 and .92 at Time I ; .91 and .92 at Time 2). This fit suggests that our theoretical factor structure was not significantly different from the observed factor structure generated by the data (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993), suggesting measurement validity for this sample.

The descriptive statistics, internal consistency reliabilities, and correlations for the variables used in the present study are reported in Table 1. It is interesting to note that the generalized potency measures are significant correlates of antecedents and outcomes, but the specific GEA and GED are not.

Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test our hypotheses. Because small sample size decreased the power of our tests, as in Gibson (1999) and Gibson et al. (2000), we relaxed the significance level t op < . lo. Hypothesis 1 predicted that group cohesion and the strength of a group’s norms would be positively related to both group efficacy and group potency. Table 2 shows that group norms at both time periods were significantly related to group potency (p = .40, p < .lo, and p = .71.p < .01, for Times 1 and 2, respectively) even when performance was controlled. Consistent with the bivariate correlations in Table I , neither group cohesion nor group norms were significantly related to either of the group efficacy measures. Thus, there was only partial support for Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that group potency, and not group efficacy, at Time 2 would be positively related to performance, after controlling for prior performance. Similarly, Hypothesis 3 predicted that group potency would be positively related to and would account for more variance in task satisfaction than group efficacy. Consistent with the hypotheses, Table 3 shows that after controlling for the effects of performance on Project 1, as well group size and individualism- collectivism, Project 2’s group potency significantly predicted task performance for Project 2 (p = .40, p < .05). However, both measures of group efficacy were unrelated to performance. Table 3 also shows that group potency at Time 2 predicted group task satisfaction, while group efficacy did not. Thus, Hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported.

Hypothesis 4 predicted a change in group efficacy ratings, but no change in group potency ratings during the group projects. Thus, paired-sample t tests were conducted for this hypothesis. In support of the hypothesis, no significant differences were found for the group potency means (7.99 and 8.04, as shown in Table I). However, significant differences were found when we compared individuals’ ratings of group efficacy for Projects 1 and 2 ( M = 399.74 and 450.54) t( 1,26) = -3.61, p < .01. Thus, our construct validity hypothesis was supported.

1644 LEE ET AL.

Discussion

The present study found that generalized confidence did influence performance, even while controlling for past performance (a typical confound in these types of studies). Specifically, group potency at Time 2 had a positive effect on task performance at Time 2, even when the performance at Time 1 was taken into account. This suggests that confidence beliefs can have a powerful influence on behavior at the group level, as well as the individual level.

We also found that group efficacy, however measured, was unrelated to our antecedents or outcomes. Indeed, it appears that when a group is performing a novel task, group potency enhances performance, but group efficacy does not. This finding could relate back to Fishbein and Azjen’s (1975) and Huh’s (1991) suggestions that attitudes and behaviors must be at the same level of specificity. Consider that a group might approach a novel task in a generalized manner. The group has no predetermined roles, routines, or norms for the task, so the group’s orientation toward the task might be generalized. Thus, group potency, a generalized confidence construct, would be positively related to such generalized task performance, as was found here.

Our explanation for the nonsignificant influence of group efficacy on task performance is the nature of the tasks that were performed; that is, they were unfamiliar and complex. Gist and Mitchell (1992) similarly suggested that task uncertainty would moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. And recently, Gibson (1 999) found support for this assertion in a simula- tion study. When task uncertainty was high, group efficacy was unrelated to group effectiveness. Future research should examine the moderating role of task uncertainty on the effects of group potency and group efficacy on intact groups over time.

In our study, the two tasks were novel projects for the students, and each project was quite different. Project 1 required student groups to select public figures who were effective leaders and those who were ineffective leaders. The task was to explain why these selected leaders were effective or ineffective, using previously learned leadership theories, as well as their own propositions to extend these theories where necessary. Project 2 required student groups to interview employed individuals with a minimum of 2 years’ work experience and to collect incidents of fairness at work. Students were to use theories of management and social psychology to explain why employees considered these incidents unfair, and to suggest alternative courses of actions by management. Given the likeli- hood that these projects were novel to students (as no prior coursework required students to develop behavioral theories or to conduct outside interviews) and different from each other, there is unlikely to have been any direct transference of knowledge or skills required to perform these two tasks. Hence, task-specific group efficacy did not predict performance.


In instances when self-efficacy predicts performance, it is usually with tasks that require knowledge that is transferable from other experiences, or tasks with outcomes that provide immediate feedback and quantifiable outcomes. For example, in such research, Gist et al. (1989) examined computer software training, a task that gave participants immediate feedback, and Gist’s (1989) outcome was idea generation, again providing immediate, quantifiable feedback for the participants. However, our intent was not to examine the effect of task novelty on the relationship between group confidence and performance. Therefore, task novelty was neither manipulated nor measured. We explain the tasks to underscore our argument that the tasks were novel, yet future research is needed to quantify the precise effects of task novelty as a moderator between group confidence and performance.

One alternative explanation was that group efficacy did not predict performance because we had a faulty measure of group efficacy. However, we measured this using two different, well-tested scales. As well, we note that the verification of Hypothesis 4 (significant mean change in group efficacy across time) helps to support the construct validity of our group efficacy measure.

Durham, Knight, and Locke (1997) also found that group efficacy does not directly influence performance. They found that team-set goal difficulty mediates the relationship of group efficacy and task performance. Future studies might also consider whether group goal difficulty mediates the group-efficacy/outcome relationship, and whether other mediators such as communication among group members or performance-based group incentives are useful for explaining the group-confidence/performance relationship (Erez & Somech, 1996).

As well, future research might consider whether group efficacy actually hin- ders performance or simply does nothing to enhance it. Although self-efficacy is desirable to possess, collective efficacy at times might be less desirable if it influences and increases pressures for uniformity and concurrence seeking (Whyte, 1998). Whyte suggested a possible link between inflated perceptions of collective efficacy and the tendency to view decisions made in the face of threatening or challenging circumstances as choices between losses. According to Whyte, such choices induce a preference for risk that might be inappropriate in decisions about crucial matters. In our study, not only was there an increase in mean level of collective efficacy (the aggregation method) from Time 1 ( M = 396.85) to Time 2 ( M = 45 1.14), there was also an increase in collective efficacy when collective efficacy was assessed using the group discussion method ( M = 505.42). This could be an example of concurrence-seeking behavior that might have a det- rimental effect on decision making and subsequent performance. Future studies could examine ways to reduce inflated perceptions of collective efficacy and to find ways to increase realistic appraisals of collective efficacy.

Moving to the antecedents, as predicted, cohesion and norm strength were both positively correlated with group potency. These results are consistent with

1646 LEE ET AL.

our proposed mechanism by which confident thought enhances performance at the group level. As a group’s cohesiveness and norm strength increase, the culture of that group might be called tight (Witkin & Berry, 1975). Indeed, the correlation at Time 2 between norms and cohesiveness was very large, providing support for a unitary concept of tightness. However, we analyzed the measures separately to reflect the theoretical distinction of the two constructs. In tight cultures, a person’s beliefs come to be shared by other group members so that one person’s positive beliefs about a group’s potential can be transferred and internal- ized by other group members. Thus, one member’s beliefs about the group’s potency can spread to other group members. In turn, the members who believe that the group is capable of performing might expend more directive effort on the task at hand, which results in higher performance.

At the individual level, positive thought (self-efficacy) has been related to amount of effort expended and persistence of coping behaviors (Bandura, 1986). We suggest a similar mechanism at the group level; that is, a group’s confidence, transmitted across members as a result of cohesiveness and norms, results in higher effort and persistence by group members, which in turn results in higher performance. Thus, our study’s theoretical contribution is in explaining why such factors as cohesion and norm strength enhance performance. Cohesion and norms tend to promote and communicate a generalized feeling of strength, ability, or potency, which, in turn, helps groups to perform. Future studies might directly investigate the role of a group’s culture in transmitting confidence across group members, as well as consideration of other antecedents. For example, Lester, Meglino, and Korsgaard (1 998) recently reported that charismatic leadership and communicatiodcooperation affect group potency.

Limitations

Another limitation is our use of a student sample to test the hypotheses, because students might have been less involved than employees would be. Yet, our student groups faced a real consequence in their group projects: their course grade. As well, our student groups worked with each other over a number of months and through two group projects. It is hoped that these design features pre- vented typical problems with student samples, such as lack of involvement and short artificial duration. Further, it is difficult to find self-managed groups in a single organization with each team performing the same task. Therefore, the control afforded by the use of student samples balances the problems of limited gen- eralizabi1ity.The present study’s first limitation, inherent in doing group-level research, is the relatively small sample size. Although we had 175 participants, our actual group-level sample consisted of 27 groups. This small sample size would decrease the power of our tests (hence increasing Type I1 error; Cook & Campbell, 1979). To compensate, we increased our acceptable significance level


t op < .lo, as this would decrease our Type I1 error. This is a fairly typical procedure done in group research to mitigate oftentimes unavoidable small sample sizes (cf. Gibson, 1999; Gibson et al., 2000). Nonetheless, this statistical adjustment is, of course, less optimal than actually being able to increase sample size.

A final limitation is the generalizability of our study to other settings and cultural groups. We used self-managed groups performing a series of tasks over an extended period of time. As noted earlier, a collective context might be more useful for examining the dynamics of group-level relationships, yet it remains an empirical question as to the generalizability of our findings. Earley (1989) found that collectivism decreased social loafing in groups, suggesting that mean levels of performance might be affected. Additionally, he found that collectivists feel more capable among in-groups, suggesting that mean levels of group efficacy or group potency might be affected. Yet, any mean level differences in our variables are not likely to change the nature of the relationship between our variables.

Gibson (1999) found a moderating effect for collectivism, such that collectivism made the relationship between group efficacy and group effectiveness (i.e., performance) stronger. Since we found no effect for group efficacy in our collective Chinese context, we are not concerned that the collectivism of our sample overinflated the relationship between group efficacy and performance. And since we have no theory to suggest that the relationships we found would not be present in an individualistic culture (even if they were weaker) and since we found no effect for group efficacy (in the presence of individual-level collectivism), we are fairly comfortable leaving future research to address the potential generalizability of our findings to other cultural contexts.

Practical Implications

This study indicates that generalized confidence (group potency) is a strong predictor of group outcomes when group members are unfamiliar with the complex tasks at hand. The effect of group potency was significant, even when past performance of the group was controlled. Neither group efficacy measure was significantly correlated to group outcomes. Moreover, the tightness of a group (as indexed via cohesiveness and norm strength) enhances group potency, thus offering groups a way of developing this important attitude (potency), independent of past performance.

We chose to study both cohesion and norm strength, not only because we thought they would enhance group confidence, but also because they offer managers a mechanism for intervening in group development. Groups might be able to enter the performance-to-confident-thought-to-performance cycle by exercises designed to enhance cohesiveness and norm development. But note, too, that our results are for groups facing complex, novel tasks. This is an important qualifier, for it suggests how companies should best allocate their limited resources. For groups facing mundane or routine tasks, training that focuses on specific skill

1648 LEE ET AL.

development might best enhance performance. On the other hand, for groups with a broad task domain or that are expected to engage in a wide variety of tasks using different skill sets, it might be more efficient for management to focus on building the group’s potency since the rewards of this training transcend specific task and skill requirements. With skill-based training, these groups with a broad task domain would have to endure near continuous training (for every new task that was assigned). Thus, the focus of building potency (via selection, structuring work so that feedback prompts more confidence, etc.) is likely to enhance positive performance changes, despite the fact that potency changes more slowly than does efficacy. As to the specifics of the managerial intervention, the results here suggest that training that enhances cohesion and norm strength would, in turn, enhance group potency.

Just as it takes individuals a while to develop self-esteem, it also may take groups some time to develop a sense of potency, Future research that attempts to change a group’s potency should consider a design that studies intact groups over a long period of time. We propose that researchers compare various group interventions (e.g., task-focused team building, emotional spirit building, leadership building) and examine which of them appear to enhance group potency fastest or to the greatest extent or in a way that is most long lasting. We note that our study was a cross-sectional correlation of potency, rather than a longitudinal testing of various managerial interventions to increase potency, yet the cross-sectional correlations suggest that elevating cohesion and norm strength would elevate potency and in turn, enhance performance on nonroutine tasks.

References

Ancona, D. (1993). The classics and the contemporary: A new blend of small group theory. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations (pp. 225-243). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. ( 1 977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1 986). Social jbundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation

indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Meth-

Campion, M. A,, Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.

Cohen, S. G., & Ledford G. E. ( 1 994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47, 13-43.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1 996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643-676.

O ~ S , 2,49-68.


Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues forfield settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team- set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72,203-23 1.

Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565-58 1.

Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets west meets mideast: Further explorations of col- lectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal,

Eden, D. (1 990). Pygmalion in management: Productivity as a sepjulJilling prophecy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling Galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 770-780.

Erez, M., & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects of culture and group-based motivation. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 39, 1513-1537.

Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). BelieJ: attitude, intention, and behavior. Read- ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gabrenya, W. K., Jr., Latane, B., & Wang, Y. E. (1981, July). Social loafing among Chinese overseas and US. students. Paper presented at the 2nd Asian conference of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Taipei, Taiwan.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Monte Car10 evaluations of goodness-of- fit indices for structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & S. J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 40-65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gibson, C. B. (1995). Determinants and consequences of group-eflcacy beliefs in work organizations in the US., Hong Kong, and Indonesia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 42, 138-152.

Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding group-efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group and Organi- zation Management, 25,67-97.

Gist, M. E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42,787-805.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 1 7, 183-2 1 1.

Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 884-891.

36,3 19-348.

1650 LEE ET AL.

Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. B. (1991). The influence of self- efficacy and training condition on retention of learning. Personnel Psychol-

Guzzo, R. A., Campbell, R. J., Moses, J. L., Ritchie, R. R., Schneider, B., Shaff, K., Wheeler, J., & Gustafson, P. W. (1991). What makes high-performing teams effective? Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park.

Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. ( 1 993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal ofSocial Psycholum, 32, 87- 106.

Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don 1). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ho, D. ( 199 1 ). Relational orientation and methodological individualism. Bulletin of the Hung Kong Psychological Society, 26/27, 1-15.

Hodges, L., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23,48-59.

H u h , C. (1 99 1 ). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M. D. Dunette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook ofindustrial organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 445-506). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy- chologists Press.

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.

Kane, T. D., Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Blair, V W. (1993, April). The moderating effects of attributional style on goal theory processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

Kerr, N. L. ( 1989). Illusions of efficacy: The effects of group size on perceived efficacy in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25,

Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures. Journal of’Applied Psychology, 79,364-369.

Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (1998, August). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation. Paper presented at the 1998 Academy of Management meetings, San Diego, CA.

Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performance spi- rals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645-678.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. €? ( 1 990). A theoly of goal setting and taskperfor-

ogy, 44,837-86 I .

287-313.

ogy, 69,24 1-25 I .

mance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cog- nition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of P.sychology, 38, 299-337.

McGrath, J. E. ( 1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mesch, D. J., Farh, J., & Podsakoff, I? M. (1989, August). Effects offiedback sign on group goal setting, strategies, and performance: An empirical examination of some control theory hypotheses. Paper presented to the Organizational Behavior Division at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.

Mikula, G., Petri, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 133-149.

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (1996). A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 187-198.

Sayles, L. R. (1958). The behavior of industrial work groups. New York, N Y John Wiley & Sons.

Shea, G. I?, & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28,25-3 1.

Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Jr., O’Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 39,412-438.

Spink, K. S. (1 990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12,301-3 11.

Staw, B. M. (1984). Organizational behavior: A review and reformulation of the field’s outcome variables. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 627-666.

Tipton, R. M., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1984). The measurement of generalized self-efficacy: A study of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assess- ment, 48, 545-548.

Triandis, H. C. (1 996, January). Converging measurement of horizontal and ver- tical individualism and collectivism. Paper presented at the Hong Kong Insti- tute of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay.

Wagner, H. A., 111. ( 1995). Studies of individualism+ollectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152- 172.

Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1988, August). A theory ofgroup goals and group performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Man- agement, New Orleans, LA.

1652 LEE ET AL.

Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. Brit- ish Journal of’ Social Psychology, 32,307-334.

Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis’s groupthink model: The key role of collective efficacy in decision fiascoes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 185-209.

Witkin, H. A,, & Berry, J. W. (1975). Psychological differentiation in cross- cultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6,4-87.

Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 4 7, 101 3- 1024.

Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V, Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-ej‘ficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 305-328). New York, N Y Plenum.

An Investigation of the Antecedents and Consequences of Group-Level Confidence

Documents

Transcript of An Investigation of the Antecedents and Consequences of Group-Level Confidence