Словари и журналы / Психологические журналы / p115Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
.pdf
115
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2002), 75, 115–119
© 2002 The British Psychological Society
www.bps.org.uk
Short research n ote
ConŽ dence at the group level of analysis:
A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness
Craig L. Pearce1 *, Cynthia A. Gallagher2 and Michael D. Ensley3
1Peter F. Drucker Graduate School of Management, Claremont Graduate University, USA
2Ogilvy & Mather, New York, USA
3Belk College of Business Administration, University of
North Carolina-Charlotte, USA
Our longitudinal Ž eld study investigated the relationship between team potency and team effectiveness. The sample for this study was drawn from 71 change management teams from an automotive Ž rm in the USA. Team potency ratings were obtained from team members. Team effectiveness ratings were obtained from team members, team leaders and external raters. Results indicated that team effectiveness and team potency are reciprocally and longitudinally related (p<.01).
Team potency is the collective belief within a group that it can be effective (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993). Guzzo et al. (1993) describe potency as both an antecedent and outcome of team effectiveness, i.e. they proposed that the constructs are reciprocally and longitudinally related. Bandura (1997), Lindsley, Brass, and Thomas (1995) and Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, and Zazanis (1995) articulate a similar reciprocal relationship between collective efficacy and effectiveness, while Hackman (1990) described how groups can enter self-fuelling spirals of performance. Potency and collective efficacy are highly related concepts—both are concerned with the measurement of confidence at the group level of analysis (Shamir, 1990). While it has been hypothesized that confidence at the group level of analysis is positively, reciprocally and longitudinally related to team effectiveness, this relationship has not been confirmed with empirical field research. Thus, the purpose of this research is to extend previous research on confidence at the group level of analysis by examining the potential positive, reciprocal and longitudinal relationship between potency and effectiveness in a field setting.
To examine the relationship between potency and effectiveness, we conducted research at a large automotive manufacturing firm located in the mid-Atlantic United States with a sample of 71 change management teams (CMTs). The CMTs in this study were expected to identify problems, to initiate and contribute new ideas, and to implement solutions for enhanced productivity, product quality, and quality of work
*Requests for reprints |
should be addressed to Craig L. Pearce, Peter F. |
Drucker Graduate School of Manage- |
ment, Claremont Graduate University, 1021 North Dartmouth Avenue, |
Claremont, CA 91711, USA (e-mail: |
|
craig.pearce@cgu.edu). |
|
|
116 Craig L. Pearce et al.
life. These teams were semi-permanent, with ongoing responsibilities beyond the completion of any given task. Thus, as the CMTs finished projects, their responsibility was to identify new projects on which to work.
Integration and hypotheses
Prior research suggests that the level of effectiveness affects potency (e.g. Guzzo et al., 1993). For example, Hodges and Carron (1992) found that groups displayed lower levels of collective efficacy after losing a trial. Riggs and Knight (1994) found that perceptions of successful group performance increased levels of collective efficacy while failure had a negative effect on collective efficacy. Prussia and Kinicki (1996) found collective efficacy, along with group affective evaluation, completely mediated the relationship between feedback and performance. Therefore, we expect that team effectiveness will be positively related to subsequent levels of potency. Thus:
Hypothesis 1: Team effectiveness at time 1 is positively related to potency at time 2.
Prior research also suggests that potency may positively affect team effectiveness (e.g. Guzzo et al., 1993). For example, Guzzo et al. (1991) and Shea and Guzzo (1987) found a positive relationship between potency and customer service. Sosik, Avolio, and Kahai (1997) found potency to be a significant predictor of report quality in a laboratory study of groups using a group decision support system. Larson and LaFasto (1989), in a study of 27 management and project teams, found confidence in ability to perform to be positively related to team performance. In reference to collective efficacy, Hodges and Carron (1992) and Little and Madigan (1997) also provide support for this relationship between potency and effectiveness. Therefore, we expect that potency will be positively related to subsequent levels of team effectiveness. Thus:
Hypothesis 2: Potency at time 1 is positively related to team effectiveness at time 2.
Method
Participants
The team members in this study were relatively homogeneous. The average age of team members was 49.6 years (SD=6.9). Nearly all team members were male (97.5%), and most had long tenure with their organization (M=24.6 years, SD=8.2) and with their respective teams (M=15.3 months, SD=10.3). Team size had a mean of 7.2 (SD=2.7), with a range of 3 to 17 members.
Data collection procedures
We collected data from three sources: (a) team members, (b) team leaders, and (c) external raters. External raters comprised two types of individuals: managers to whom the teams reported, and internal customers of the teams’ output. Managers were identified through interviews with the team leaders and with management. Whereas team leaders were participants in their teams, the managers were located at a higher organizational level and had supervisory responsibility for the teams. Internal customers of team output were identified through interviews with team leaders and with management.
Participation in this study was voluntary. Of the 236 team members who received the questionnaires at time 1, 197 returned questionnaires, giving a response rate of 83%. At the team level of analysis, time 1 data were obtained for 70 teams from team members and for 40 teams from team leaders, thus yielding team level response rates of 99%and 56%, respectively. At time 2,
ConŽ dence at the group level |
117 |
which lagged time 1 by approximately 6 months, we received completed questionnaires for 61 teams from external raters and for 48 teams from team members yielding team level response rates of 86%and 68%, respectively.
Measures
All measures were collected on 5-point Likert-type scales. To assess the internal consistency of each scale the Cronbach a procedure (Cronbach, 1951) was used. While the CMT is the unit of analysis in this research, the data for this research were collected from individuals. Therefore, where appropriate, we provide justification for the aggregation of the data to the team level of analysis. First, we examined the rWG(J) scores (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), which produces a measure of consensus among respondents and ‘‘justification for aggregation’’ (Koslowski &
Hattrup, 1992, p. 162). An rWG(J) score of >.70 represents a high level of agreement (George, 1990). Second, we examined h2 statistics. The higher the h2, the more useful the construct is for
analysis at the team level.
Team potency
Guzzo et al. (1993) stated ‘‘advancement of research [on potency] will depend on . . . adopting a common set of items . . . extending the range of samples . . . and further relating potency measures to performance criteria’’ (1993, p. 98). Our research heeds Guzzo’s advice. We used eight slightly modified (we substituted ‘‘team’’ for ‘‘group’’) questionnaire items developed by Guzzo et al. (1993) to assess potency. The time 1 internal consistency reliabilityfor potency was
a=.89, the rWG(J) was .91 and the h2 was .54. The time 2 internal consistency reliability for potency was a=.93, the rWG(J) was .93 and the h2 was .64.
Team effectiveness
In this research, team effectiveness was assessed on seven sub-dimensions: (a) output; (b) quality; (c) change; (d) organizing and planning; (e) interpersonal; (f) value; and (g) overall effectiveness. The internal consistency reliability for the effectiveness scale was, a=.96 for time 1 team self-ratings, a=.98 for time 2 team self-ratings, a=.80 for team leader ratings and a=.85
for external ratings. The team self-rating time 1 rWG(J) was .96 and the h2 was .45. The team self-rating time 2 rWG(J) was .92 and the h2 was .57. The external rating time 2 rWG(J) was .97 and the h2 was .58.
Analysis procedure
We used zero-order correlations with longitudinal data to examine the hypothesized relationships in this study. For hypothesis 1 we examined the correlations between time 1 potency and time 2 team effectiveness. For hypothesis 2 we examined the correlations between time 1 team effectiveness and time 2 potency.
Results and discussion
Hypothesis 1 suggested that team effectiveness would be positively related to subsequent potency. Time 1 team effectiveness, as assessed by team members, was positively correlated with time 2 potency (r=.53, p<.01) and time 1 team effectiveness, as assessed by team leaders, was positively correlated with time 2 potency (r=.46, p<.01). Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported. In other words, higher (lower) levels of time 1 team effectiveness, whether rated by team members or team leaders, are predictive of higher (lower) levels of time 2 potency. Examination of the correlation table (see Table 1) also shows significant concurrent relationships. These results are similar to previous findings regarding collective efficacy. For example, Hodges and Carron (1992), Prussia and Kinicki (1996), and Riggs and Knight (1994) all found previous effectiveness to be positively related to subsequent collective efficacy.
118 Craig L. Pearce et al.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for study variables
Variables |
Mean |
SD |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Team potency (t1) |
3.71 |
0.41 |
.89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Team potency (t2) |
3.56 |
0.55 |
.60** |
.93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(46) |
.93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.64 |
|
|
|
|
3. |
Team leader effectiveness ratings (t1) |
3.77 |
0.51 |
.41** |
.46** |
.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37) |
(30) |
|
|
|
|
4. |
External effectiveness ratings (t2) |
3.52 |
0.66 |
.39** |
.50** |
.26† |
.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(57) |
(43) |
(36) |
.97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.58 |
|
|
5. |
Team member effectiveness ratings (t1) |
3.68 |
0.35 |
.81** |
.53** .41** .45** |
.96 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
(70) |
(46) |
(36) |
(56) |
.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.45 |
|
6. |
Team member effectiveness ratings (t2) |
3.55 |
0.59 |
.52** |
.89** |
.44** .61** .50** |
.98 |
||
|
|
|
|
(46) |
(48) |
(30) |
(43) |
(46) |
.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.57 |
Note: Numbers in parentheses beneath the correlations indicate the N for each correlation. The numbers on the diagonal are the internal consistency reliability, the rWG(J) and the g2 for each variable, respectively. †p<.07, *p<.05, **p<.01.
Hypothesis 2 suggested that potency would be positively related to subsequent team effectiveness. Time 1 potency was found to be positively correlated with time 2 team effectiveness as assessed by team members (r=.52, p<.01) and as assessed by external raters (r=.39, p<.01). Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported. In other words, higher (lower) levels of time 1 potency are predictive of higher (lower) levels of team effectiveness, whether rated by team members or external raters. These findings are similar to those of Shea and Guzzo (1987), Guzzo et al. (1991) and Sosik et al. (1997), who found positive relationships between potency and team effectiveness.
Recent research has taken a broad interest in the examination of constructs previously studied solely at the individual level of analysis and elevated them to the group level of analysis (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Ensley & Pearce, 2001; Guzzo et al., 1993; Lindsley et al., 1995; Sosik et al. 1997). The results of this research suggest that potency and effectiveness are reciprocally and longitudinally related. However, these results should be interpreted with caution. More research is needed to further clarify the relationship between potency and team effectiveness across a broader array of organizational contexts with alternative empirical analyses. In an experimental setting, for instance, one might control for previous levels of potency when examining the predictive ability of effectiveness on subsequent levels of potency. Nonetheless, potency–effectiveness relationships appear to be an important factor to consider when using teams.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Paul Spector and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
ConŽ dence at the group level |
119 |
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Ensley, M. D., & Pearce, C. L. (2001). Shared cognition as a process and an outcome in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 145–160.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 107–116.
Guzzo, R. A., Campbell, R. J., Moses, J. L., Ritchie, R. J., Schneider, B., Shaff, K., Wheeler, J., & Gustafson, P. W. (1991). What makes high performing teams effective? Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work and those that don’t. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hodges, L., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group performance. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 23, 48–59.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group inter-rater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Koslowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161–167.
Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Team work: What must go right/What can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy–performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645–678.
Little, B. L., & Madigan, R. M. (1997). The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group Research, 28, 517–534.
Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (1996). A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 187–198.
Riggs, M. L., & Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success–failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: Acausal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 755–766.
Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313–332.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28, 25–31.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89–103.
Zaccaro, S., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation and adjustment (pp. 305–328). New York: Plenum Press.
Received 23 September 1999; revised version received 29 August 2001