NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING:
NO SUPPORT FOR THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TEAM
EFFORT IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
COLLECTIVE EFFICACY AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 11, 2015 KLASKE HOLLEMA Student number: 2160064 Akkerstraat 24-2 9717 KJ Groningen tel.: +31 (0)6-31688493 email: k.hollema@student.rug.nl Supervisor/university prof. dr. G.S. van der Vegt
NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING:
NO SUPPORT FOR THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TEAM EFFORT
IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
Abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the use of teams increases in many organizations (Cohen, & Bailey, 1997), research aimed at identifying factors contributing to team performance is popular (Cohen, & Bailey, 1997; Rapp, Bachrach, Rapp, & Mullins, 2014). One of the identified factors, which has an influence on team performance, is collective efficacy. Collective efficacy is defined as: ‘’A group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments’’ (Bandura, 1997: 447). Several studies showed a significant positive relationship between collective efficacy and performance (Myers, Feltz, & Short, 2004; Myers, Payment, & Feltz, 2004; Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007). Also meta-analytic research indicated a significant positive relationship between collective efficacy and team performance (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002; Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009). However, research also suggested that the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance is more complex. A number of studies indicated that the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance is non-linear or that a moderator effects the relationship (Gibson, 1999; Gully et al., 2002; Katz-Navon, & Erez, 2005; Rapp et al., 2014; Stajkovic et al., 2009).
However, what is most important in my opinion is that research devoted little attention to exploring potential mediators of the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance until now. One of the underlying mechanisms in the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance, which many studies assumed (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Gully et al., 2002; Locke, 1991; Myers et al., 2004; Stajkovic et al., 2009; Tasa et al., 2007), is team effort. However, research did not indicate team effort as a mediator in the relationship yet. It is important to analyze if team effort indeed mediates the relationship, because it contributes to the understanding of what the underlying mechanisms are in the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance. If research evidences the assumed mediation effect of team effort, it can build further on this. Therefore, in this research I explore the mediating effect of team effort in the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance.
2. THEORY
Bandura introduced the concept of collective efficacy in 1982 and stated that perceived collective efficacy influences what people choose to do as a group, how much effort they put into it, and their staying power when group efforts fail to produce results. Via these processes collective efficacy should influence team performance positively (Bandura 1982, 1997; Locke, 1991). However, as already stated in the introduction, research devoted little attention to researching these underlying mechanisms in the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance. Many studies assumed that team effort mediates the relationship (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Gully et al., 2002; Locke, 1991; Myers et al., 2004; Stajkovic et al., 2009; Tasa et al., 2007), but this is not indicated by research yet. Therefore, I explore the mediating effect of team effort in this research.
TABLE 1
Overview of research on the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance
Research Sample Effects
Gibson, 1999.
Two intercultural studies examined several moderators in the relationship between group efficacy and group effectiveness.
The first study was a simulation study whereby 294 U.S. and Hong Kong university students, who were assigned to 60 teams, performed a business simulation and filled in various questionnaires. The second study was a field study whereby 185 nurses, who belonged to 71 teams, from two U.S. hospitals and one Indonesian hospital filled in questionnaires. The quality of nursing care indicated the effectiveness of teams.
Only significant relationship between group efficacy and group effectiveness when task uncertainty is low (r = .35). Only significant relationship between group efficacy and group effectiveness when interdependence is high (r = .53). Only significant relationship between group efficacy and group effectiveness when collectivism is high (r = .62)
Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002.
Meta-analytic research which assessed the direct relationship between team efficacy and performance and the moderating effect of interdependence on this relationship.
Significant positive relationship between team efficacy and performance (estimated p (estimated population parameter = weighted average effect size corrected for unreliability in independent and dependent variables) = .41).
Interdependence significantly moderates the relationship between team efficacy and performance in such a way that the relationship between team-efficacy and performance is stronger when interdependence is high (estimated p = .45) than when it is low (estimated p = .34).
Katz-Navon, & Erez, 2005.
In this study 120 students, who were assigned to three-person work teams, performed a performance appraisal task.
The research assessed, among other things, the moderating effect of task interdependence on the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance.
Only significant relationship between group efficacy and group effectiveness when interdependence is high (F = 4.31).
Myers, Feltz, & Short, 2004.
This study examined the reciprocal relationship between collective efficacy and team performance over a season of competition in American football. The research assessed efficacy beliefs of offensive
football players from 10 teams prior to 8 consecutive games. The research measured performance by game-level performance indexes.
Significant positive relationship between collective efficacy and team performance within weeks and across games (B = .61).
Myers, Payment, & Feltz, 2004.
This study examined reciprocal relationships between collective efficacy and team performance over a season of competition in women’s intercollegiate ice hockey. The research assessed efficacy beliefs of hockey players from 12 teams prior to the games. Team performance indexes produced an overall measure of performance for each game.
Significant moderately positive relationship between collective efficacy and team performance after statistically controlling for the performance of the day before (B = .56). Rapp, Bachrach, Rapp, & Mullins, 2014
This lagged field test collected multisource data from 153 technology sales teams with approximately five members per team.
The research assessed whether there existed a curvilinear relationship between collective efficacy and team performance. Also, the research assessed the moderating effect of team goal monitoring on this relationship.
Significant curvilinear relationship between collective efficacy and team performance (association between quadratic team efficacy and team performance: B = -.35, p = .002, ∆R2 = .05).
Team goal monitoring moderates the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance in such a way that the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance is significantly positive when team goal monitoring is high (interaction between quadratic team efficacy and monitoring: B = .37, p = .012, ∆R2 = .03).
Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009.
Meta-analytic research which assessed the direct relationship between collective efficacy and group performance and the moderating effect of interdependence on this relationship.
Significant positive relationship between collective efficacy and group performance (G(r+) = .35).
Interdependence significantly moderates the relationship between collective efficacy and performance in such a way that the relationship between collective efficacy and group performance is stronger when interdependence is high (G(r+) = .45)
than when it is medium (G(r+) = .25) or
low (G(r+) = .10).
Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007.
In this study 191 students, who were assigned to 50 teams, performed a longitudinal simulation and filled in various questionnaires.
The research assessed, among other things, the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance.
The relationship between collective efficacy and team performance
Table 1 shows that studies found mixed findings for the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance. A number of studies found a direct positive relationship between collective efficacy and team performance (Gully et al., 2002; Myers et al., 2004; Myers et al., 2004; Stajkovic et al., 2009; Tasa et al., 2007). Whereas other studies reported no relationship between collective efficacy and team performance or a non-linear relationship (Gibson, 1999; Katz-Navon, & Erez, 2005; Rapp et al., 2014). Katz-Navon and Erez (2005) indicated for example that collective efficacy affected team performance significantly under conditions of high interdependence tasks, but not under conditions of low interdependence tasks. Furthermore, Rapp, Bachrach, Rapp, and Mullins (2014) indicated that the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance is curvilinear.
However, from this review of research, I can conclude that research indicated an overall positive effect for the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance. Locke (1991) and Bandura (1982, 1997) clearly explained why collective efficacy can have beneficial effects on team performance. Locke (1991) argued that efficacy beliefs, in conjunction with goals, compose the ‘’motivational hub’’, which represents the processes that most directly influence action. According to Bandura (1997) collective efficacy can ‘’influence the type of future [people] seek to achieve, how they manage their resources, the plans, and strategies they construct, how much effort they put into their group endeavor, their staying power when collective efforts fail to produce quick results or encounter forcible opposition, and their vulnerability to discouragement’’.
Furthermore, researchers argued and indicated that teams with perceptions of high collective efficacy set challenging and difficult goals, because they have more faith in that they are able to organize and execute the courses of action required. Subsequently, this results via other processes like information seeking in high performance levels (DeRue, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Feltz, 2010; Durham, Locke, Poon, & McLeod, 2009).
Thus, collective efficacy can have beneficial effects on team performance, because collective efficacy can motivate teams and can influence the amount of effort teams put in their tasks, their staying power, and the strategies and plans they adopt. Therefore:
Team effort: A mediating effect
One of the assumed underlying mechanisms in the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance is team effort (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Gully et al., 2002; Locke, 1991; Myers et al., 2004; Stajkovic et al., 2009; Tasa et al., 2007). Team effort can be defined as: ‘’The extent to which team members devote their resources (i.e., energy, attention, time) to executing team tasks’’ (Yeo, & Neal, 2004).
According to Bandura (1997) collective efficacy influences how much effort a team puts into the group endeavor. With regard to self-efficacy, Bandura and Jourden (1991) and Stone (1994) argued that if a person does not believe that it is capable to organize and execute the courses of action required, it may put less effort in its tasks, because it feels like there is little benefit from working hard. Besides, low efficacy levels can undermine effective use of cognitive capabilities by diverting attention from how best to fulfill task demands to concerns over personal deficiencies and envisioning failure scenarios (e.g., Bandura, & Jourden, 1991). Since Bandura (1997) suggested that collective efficacy influences outcomes through a variety of sociocognitive mediators in a manner similar to self-efficacy, I expect that the above-described effects for people with low levels of self-efficacy are analogous to teams with low levels of collective efficacy and that therefore teams with low levels of collective efficacy exhibit low levels of effort. However, if a team believes that it can handle certain tasks, it puts more effort into it. The sense of confidence which is generated by collective efficacy, helps to motivate and direct team effort (Fuller, Hardin, & Davison, 2007). Indeed, Rapp, Bachrach, Rapp, and Mullins (2014) indicated a significant positive relationship between collective efficacy and team effort. Finally, Lester, Meglino, and Korsgaard (2002) indicated that group potency (i.e., a group’s shared belief that it can be effective and forms hereby a parallel construct of collective efficacy) has a positive influence on team effort. Subsequently, I expect that team effort has a positive influence on team performance. Putting more effort in team tasks simply increases the likelihood of higher team performance (de Jong, & Elfring, 2010). Indeed, several studies confirmed the positive relationship between effort and performance (e.g., Blau, 1993; Brown, & Leigh, 1996; de Jong, & Elfring, 2010). Therefore:
Team feedback: A moderating effect
Research explored several processes which can influence the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance and which therefore can be possible explanations for the mixed findings. One of the indicated processes which influences the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance is team goal monitoring (Rapp et al., 2014). In a review of the team performance literature, Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) argued that ‘’the supportive findings for team efficacy likely stem from its role in the regulation of attention and effort in the team context’’. According to Rapp, Bachrach, Rapp, and Mullins (2014) team goal monitoring serves as a means of team self-regulation as well and therefore the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance depends on the extent to which teams monitor their goal progress. I argue that received team feedback can have comparable moderating effects as team goal monitoring, because received team feedback can also lead to team self-regulating behavior. Team feedback can namely motivate teams to think about things that they can do to improve performance (van der Vegt, de Jong, Bunderson, & Molleman, 2010). With analyzing the moderating effect of received team feedback I explore another possible explanation for the mixed findings of the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance. Furthermore, exploring the moderating effect of received team feedback can also have managerial implications if I indicate a moderating effect, because the effects of collective efficacy can then be enhanced by providing feedback.
Feedback can be defined as: ‘’Information about the effects of one’s actions or efforts on some criterion of interest’’ (van der Vegt et al., 2010). Several theories and argumentations can explain the self-regulating effects of team feedback. First of all, control theory can explain the self-regulation effects of feedback (Carver, & Scheier, 1982; Klein, 1989). According to control theory, systems use feedback to judge whether the system’s current state is consistent with a point of reference. If this is not the case, the system will engage in behavior that reduces the discrepancy. This process continues until feedback indicates that a system’s current state is similar to the point of reference. Thus, according to control theory, feedback can motivate teams to engage in self-regulating behaviors aimed at reducing discrepancies between the team’s current state and its desired state.
Also Ilgen, Fischer, and Taylor (1979) emphasized the motivational value of feedback in terms of promoting effort. Thus, teams which gain feedback engage in self-regulating behavior by getting more committed to their goals and therefore put more effort in their goals and develop strategies to reach the goals.
Besides the motivational value of feedback, Ilgen, Fischer, and Taylor (1979) emphasized the informational value of feedback. They suggested that feedback could, in this respect, indicate goal accomplishment (Steers, & Porter, 1974) and the concern of others about performance (Chapanis, 1964). This can subsequently influence a team’s behavior. In the case of indicating goal accomplishment teams know how they perform and they can take action on it. If teams know that others concern about their performance it is possible that they become more motivated to accomplish their goals.
In other words, past research indicated that feedback could ensure that a team keeps focusing on its goals, that it stays motivated, and engages in regulatory behavior. Therefore, I expect that the relationship between collective efficacy and team effort is stronger for teams which are provided with a lot of feedback. Feedback can ensure that a team knows what the effects of its actions or efforts are and it can use this information to engage in regulatory behavior. Besides, feedback can also influence the motivation of a team and can ensure that a team stays focused on its goals. For teams which are provided with little feedback I expect that the relationship between collective efficacy and team effort is weaker, because the behavior of these teams cannot be influenced by information about the effect of its actions or efforts. Also, the lack of feedback can lead to these teams being less motivated and less focused on their goals. If teams are provided with little feedback, their effort depends on their collective efficacy only and it is not enhanced by feedback. In light of these arguments, I expect the effect stated in the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3. Team feedback moderates the relationship between collective efficacy and team effort, such that this relationship is more positive when team feedback is high rather than low.
Conceptual model
2007), but is not indicated by research yet. I argue that collective efficacy influences how much effort a team puts into the group endeavor (Bandura, 1997; Fuller et al., 2007; Rapp et al., 2014). Subsequently, effort influences the performance of a team (Blau, 1993; Brown, & Leigh, 1996; de Jong, & Elfring, 2010). Also, I expect that the relationship between collective efficacy and team effort is moderated by received team feedback, because I argue that team feedback can function as a means of team self-regulation. The final hypothesis is stated below.
Hypothesis 4. Team feedback moderates the indirect relationship between collective efficacy and team performance through team effort, such that this indirect relationship is more positive when team feedback is high rather than low.
The corresponding conceptual model to this final hypothesis is depicted in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
3. METHOD
Sample and procedure
In order to test the hypotheses I conducted a survey study among almost all employees of the municipality of Assen. Team members answered the items about collective efficacy, team feedback, team effort, and the control variable. The team managers answered items about the performance of their team(s). I informed all team managers about the research during meetings and the team managers informed their team members subsequently. Participation was voluntary, but the team managers, the organization, and I encouraged the team members to participate in the study. I distributed the surveys for the team members in the third week of February 2015, and subsequently I distributed the surveys for the team managers in the second week of March 2015. To increase the response rate for the survey for the team members, I sent two reminders to the team members of each team and they received extra time to fill in the questionnaire. To increase the response rate for the survey for the team managers I also sent a reminder to the team managers.
The teams which participated in the research had very diverse and varied activities, from executive activities like garbage pick-up, to developing plans for the municipality and monitoring and implementing laws and regulations. In total I distributed 542 questionnaires for team members across 53 teams, ranging in team size between 3 and 36 members. This resulted in 470 completed questionnaires, which was a response rate of 87%. Slightly half of the respondents were male (59,4%). To ensure that the analysis of the data was reliable, a minimum response of three respondents per team was necessary to be included in the data analysis. Two teams did not meet this criterion and therefore I excluded them from the data analysis. Furthermore, I distributed the questionnaire for team managers across 29 team managers, 13 of these team managers supervised multiple teams. All team managers completed the questionnaire for team managers, which resulted in a response rate of 100%. All taken together, this resulted in a final sample of 469 people across 51 teams.
Measurements
I tested the hypotheses on the basis of several questions. Below I explain per variable how I tested the variable.
Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, and Hooker (1994) developed a personal efficacy beliefs scale and a collective efficacy beliefs scale. I derived two of the items to measure collective efficacy from the personal efficacy beliefs scale. In the personal efficacy beliefs scale an item was ‘’I have confidence in my ability to do my job’’ and for the purpose of this research I changed it to ‘’The members of this team have confidence in their ability to do their job’’. I used the other three items from the collective efficacy beliefs scale. A sample item was ‘’The members of this team have excellent job skills’’. The team members rated these items on a 7-point scale (1 = ‘’completely disagree’’, 7 = ‘’completely agree’’).
Team effort. I used three items to measure team effort. De Jong and Elfring (2010)
developed these items. A sample item was ‘’The members of my team work as hard as they can to achieve the team’s objectives’’. The team members rated these items on a 7-point scale (1 = ‘’completely disagree’’, 7 = ‘’completely agree’’).
Team feedback. I used three items to measure received team feedback. Van der Vegt,
van der Vliert, and Oosterhof (2003) developed these items. A sample item was ‘’We receive feedback as a team about the team performance’’. Team members rated these items on a 7-point scale (1 = ‘’completely disagree’’, 7 = ‘’completely agree’’).
Team performance. I used six items to measure team performance. Van der Vegt and
Bunderson (2005) developed these items. Team managers rated the performance of their team(s) and I asked them to compare their teams’ performance to other teams that perform similar tasks when assessing their team(s) on the six items. The six items were inter alia focused on achieving team goals, quality of the work, productivity, and effectiveness of the team. Team managers rated these items on a 7-point scale (1 = ‘’far below average’’, 7 = ‘’way above average’’).
Control variable. Since organizational tenure can explain the hypothesized effects on
4. RESULTS
Preliminary analysis
I started the data analysis with preliminary analyses. First, I conducted a factor analysis with a Varimax Rotation to examine the dimensionality of the items measuring collective efficacy, team feedback, team effort, and team performance. To assess if the extracted factors were reliable, I conducted a Cronbach’s Alpha test. All constructs had a Cronbach’s Alpha ranging between 0,899 and 0,953, indicating excellent internal consistencies.
Descriptive statistics
Besides the ICC(1), ICC(2), and rWG(J) scores, Table 2 presents the mean scores and the standard deviations of the independent variable collective efficacy, the moderator team feedback, the mediating variable team effort, the dependent variable team performance and the control variable organizational tenure. Furthermore, I presented the Pearson zero-order correlations between these five variables in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Descriptive statistics and Pearson zero-order correlations between the variables
ICC(1) ICC(2) rWG(J) Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Collective efficacy .18 .66 .89 5.36 .65 2. Team feedback .16 .63 .69 4.20 .88 .404** 3. Team effort .12 .54 .85 5.75 .62 .707** .479** 4. Team performance 5.11 .87 .346* .099 .183 5. Organizational tenure 167.72 68.86 .234 .226 .102 -.340* 6. Task complexity .51 .90 .87 3.63 .86 .007 .180 -.120 -.346* .304* 7. Task interdependency .27 .77 .65 4.26 .91 -.152 .189 .096 -.342* .011 .420** n = 51 ** = p <. 01 * = p <. 05
Organizational tenure is presented in months.
Hypothesis testing
In order to test the hypotheses I conducted linear regression analyses. I presented the results of the mediation analysis in Table 3. I presented the results of the mediated moderation analysis in Table 4.
Hypothesis 1 stated that collective efficacy has a positive relationship with team
performance. After taking the control variable organizational tenure into account, the results of the analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between collective efficacy and team performance (B = .50, p = .00; see Table 3 and 4). Therefore, I accept hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 predicted that the relationship between collective efficacy and team
performance is mediated by team effort. As shown in Table 2, the relationship between collective efficacy and team effort was significantly positive (B = .72, p = .00; see Table 3). However, the relationship between team effort and team performance was non-significant (B = -.16, p = .29; see Table 3). This implies that team effort does not mediate the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance. Indeed, the bootstrapping procedure revealed that collective efficacy and team performance were not indirectly related through team effort (indirect effect = -.11, standard error = .10, 95% confidence interval = -.34, .06; see Table 3). Therefore, I reject hypothesis 2 in that team effort does not mediate the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance.
Hypothesis 3 stated that team feedback moderates the relationship between collective
efficacy and team effort such that this relationship is more positive when team feedback is high rather than low. The results indicated that collective efficacy and team feedback do not significantly interact in their effects on team effort (B = .06, p = .47; see Table 4). Therefore, I reject hypothesis 3.
TABLE 3
Results of mediation analysis
Team effort Predictor B SE t p Constant .00 .10 .00 1.00 Organizational tenure -.07 .10 -.64 .53 Collective efficacy .72 .10 6.90 .00 R2 .50 Team performance Predictor B SE t p Constant 5.11 .10 49.54 .00 Organizational tenure -.40 .11 -3.69 .00 Collective efficacy .50 .15 3.33 .00 Team effort -.16 .15 -1.06 .29 R2 .33
Indirect relationship between collective efficacy and team performance through team effort
Indirect effect SE 95% confidence interval* -.11 .10 -.34, .06
TABLE 4
Results of mediated moderation analysis
Team effort Predictor B SE t p Constant -.03 .10 -.24 .81 Organizational tenure -.10 .10 -.95 .34 Collective efficacy .64 .11 5.84 .00 Team feedback .22 .11 1.92 .06
Collective efficacy * team feedback .06 .09 .73 .47
R2 .56 Team performance Predictor B SE t p Constant 5.11 .10 49.54 .00 Organizational tenure -.40 .11 -3.69 .00 Collective efficacy .50 .15 3.33 .00 Team effort -.16 .15 -1.06 .29 R2 .32
Indirect relationship between collective efficacy and team performance through team effort at high, middle, and low values of team feedback
Indirect effect SE 95% confidence interval*
Team feedback
High (M + 1 SD) -.11 .10 -.35, .07
Middle -.10 .09 -.31, .06
Low (M – 1 SD) -.09 .08 -.31, .04
Supplementary analyses
Since I did not find support for hypothesis 2, which stated that the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance is mediated by team effort, I conducted supplementary analyses. The aim of conducting these supplementary analyses was to explore possible explanations for the non-significant relationship between team effort and team performance. Since task complexity and task interdependency possibly moderate the relationship between team effort and team performance, I conducted moderation analyses with these two variables.
First, it is possible that task complexity moderates the relationship between team effort and team performance. Task complexity involves three aspects of a task, namely the number of acts and information cues (component complexity), the number of relationships among acts and cues (coordinative complexity), and changes in acts and cues and their relationships (dynamic complexity) (Wood, 1986). Maynard and Hakel (2009) indicated that both objective task complexity and subjective task complexity uniquely and negatively affect task performance. Other studies also indicated a negative relationship between subjective task complexity and performance (e.g., Mangos, & Steele-Johnson, 2001; Yeo, & Neal, 2004). From these findings, it can be argued that putting a lot of effort in a task may not result in high performance if the task is perceived as complex. Therefore, I expect that subjective task complexity moderates the relationship between team effort and team performance, such that this relationship is more positive when subjective task complexity is low rather than high. Namely, if the subjective task complexity is lower, the chances are higher that team members have the capacity to organize and execute the courses of action required and therefore their effort may lead to higher performance (Yeo, & Neal, 2004). If the subjective task complexity is higher, team members may not possess the capacities to organize and execute the courses of actions required. They can put a lot of effort in their tasks, but this effort may not lead to performance due to the subjective task complexity.
indicated that the impact of group processes on group outcomes becomes stronger as the team task requires higher levels of interdependency (Gibson, 1999; Gully et al., 2002; Katz-Navon, & Erez, 2005; LePine, Picollo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008; Stajkovic et al., 2009). When task interdependency is lower, team processes are less important for team performance and therefore the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance is related less strongly (Gully et al., 2002). Therefore, it can be argued that task interdependency can be important for the relationship between team effort and team performance as well. A team can put a lot of effort in its tasks but if task interdependency is low, the probability that the effort of team members, which is a team process, leads to team performance is lower. Therefore, I expect that task interdependency moderates the relationship between team effort and team performance, such that this relationship is more positive when task interdependency is high rather than low. Namely, if a team has higher task interdependency, the chances are higher that the team members work together, share their knowledge, and develop a shared mental model which should influence the relationship between team effort and team performance positively. If a team has lower task interdependency, the chances are higher that each team member works on its own and develops an own mental model which should influence the relationship between team effort and team performance negatively.
I already presented the ICC(1), ICC(2), rWG(J), mean scores, standard deviations, and the Pearson zero-order correlations with the other variables of task complexity and task interdependency in Table 2. I presented the results of the moderation analysis for task complexity in Table 5 and the results of the moderation analysis for task interdependency in Table 6.
The results indicated that team effort and task complexity do not significantly interact in their effects on team performance (B = .07, p = .49; see Table 5). Furthermore, the results indicated that team effort and task interdependency do not significantly interact in their effects on team performance (B = -.11, p = .36; see Table 6). Therefore, in this research task complexity and task interdependency cannot explain the non-significant relationship between team effort and team performance.
TABLE 5
Results of moderation analysis for task complexity
Team performance Predictor B SE t p Constant 5.12 .11 45.48 .00 Organizational tenure -.25 .12 -2.08 .04 Team effort .16 .12 1.41 .16 Task complexity -.20 .12 -1.68 .10
Team effort * task complexity .07 .11 .69 .49
R2 .22
Direct relationship between team effort and team performance at high, middle, and low values
of task complexity
Direct effect SE 95% confidence interval*
Task complexity
High (M + 1 SD) .24 .16 -.09, .56
Middle .16 .12 -.07, .39
Low (M – 1 SD) .09 .15 -.22, .40
TABLE 6
Results of moderation analysis for task interdependency
Team performance Predictor B SE t p Constant 5.12 .11 48.24 .00 Organizational tenure -.31 .11 -2.92 .01 Team effort .19 .11 1.68 .10 Task interdependency -.35 .11 -3.08 .00
Team effort * task interdependency -.11 .12 -.92 .36
R2 .31
Direct relationship between team effort and team performance at high, middle, and low values
of task interdependency
Direct effect SE 95% confidence interval*
Task complexity
High (M + 1 SD) .08 .19 -.29, .45
Middle .19 .11 -04, .42
Low (M – 1 SD) .30 .14 .02, .57
5. DISCUSSION
The main aim of this research was to investigate if team effort mediates the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance since this is assumed in many studies (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Gully et al., 2002; Locke, 1991; Myers et al., 2004; Stajkovic et al., 2009; Tasa et al., 2007). Another purpose of this research was to investigate the moderating effect of team feedback on the relationship between collective efficacy and team effort in order to supplement the research trying to explain the mixed findings of this relationship (Gibson, 1999; Gully et al., 2002; Katz-Navon, & Erez, 2005; Myers et al., 2004; Myers et al., 2004; Rapp et al., 2014; Stajkovic et al., 2009; Tasa et al., 2007). I argued that team feedback could moderate the relationship between collective efficacy and team effort, because it can lead to self-regulating behavior.
Summary of results
This research showed that there exists a significant positive relationship between collective efficacy and team performance and thereby confirmed hypothesis 1. Interestingly, this research did not support the mediating role of team effort in the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance and thereby rejected hypothesis 2. Furthermore, I also did not find that team feedback moderates the relationship between collective efficacy and team effort and thereby I rejected hypothesis 3. This implies that I also rejected hypothesis 4, which combined the previous hypotheses into one hypothesis.
Theoretical implications
Second, this research indicated that there exists a significant positive relationship between collective efficacy and team effort. This complements other research indicating and arguing that collective efficacy is an important factor in the effort of teams (Bandura, 1997; Fuller et al., 2007; Greenlees, Graydon, & Maynard, 2000; Rapp et al., 2014). However, this research indicated a non-significant relationship between team effort and team performance. Therefore, this research did not support the mediating role of team effort in the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance. This is interesting since many studies assumed that team effort does mediate the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Gully et al., 2002; Locke, 1991; Myers et al., 2004; Stajkovic et al., 2009; Tasa et al., 2007). Since I did not find support for this relationship, the relationship between team effort and team performance is probably more complex. In my opinion, there are several variables that can explain the non-significant relationship between team effort and team performance. To analyze these variables, I conducted supplementary analyses which can be found in the results section. I explored if task complexity and task interdependency moderate the relationship between team effort and team performance. However, the results indicated that task complexity and task interdependency do not moderate the relationship between team effort and team performance. Thus, the supplementary analyses also did not confirm the assumed mediation effect of team effort in the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance by including task complexity and task interdependency as moderators in this relationship. Therefore, research cannot build further on the assumed mediating effect of team effort on the basis of this research.
Furthermore, it could be that the negative moderating effect of task uncertainty on the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance, found by Gibson (1999), also applies to the relationship between team effort and team performance. Under conditions of low task uncertainty a team can be confident that certain strategies will lead to effectiveness. Under conditions of high task uncertainty a team is not confident that certain strategies will lead to effectiveness (Gibson, 1999). High task uncertainty may for example emerge if a team is not sure how it achieved a previously effective level (Gibson, 1999). It can be argued that task uncertainty can be important for the relationship between team effort and team performance as well. If a team has higher task uncertainty, it may put effort in activities or strategies that it believes will lead to team performance, but because of the inherent ambiguity of the task, its chance of actually achieving team performance is low. If a team has lower task uncertainty, it may put effort in activities or strategies from which it is confident that it will lead to team performance which should influence the relationship between team effort and team performance positively.
Moreover, team effort possibly does not mediate the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance at all since it seems that the relationship between team effort and team performance is complex and possibly moderated by several contingency factors. It could be that other processes are more important and evident as mediators in the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance. Locke (1991) argued that collective efficacy composes the ‘’motivational hub’’, which represents the processes that most directly influence action. Goal commitment could be such a motivational process. Mulvey and Klein (1998) indicated that collective efficacy is positively related to group goal commitment and that group goal commitment has a positive relationship with group performance. However, they were not able to indicate a mediating effect of group goal commitment. Subsequent research also did not explore the mediating effects of goal commitment in the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance.
ensure that a team knows what the effects of its actions or efforts are, that it can influence the motivation of a team, and that it can ensure that a team keeps focused on its goals. These effects of team feedback should influence the self-regulating behavior of a team. However, team feedback like this is not a team’s activity which directly leads to goal accomplishment (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Team feedback could serve as a means of self-regulation if team members provided each other with feedback (Marks et al., 2001). Then, team members observe the actions of their teammates and watch for errors or performance discrepancies. When a team member identifies the need to provide help, it could provide suggestive or corrective feedback to assist the team member in order to get the performance back on track (Dickinson, & McIntyre, 1997).
Managerial implications
transformational leadership in order to build perceptions of the collective abilities of a team. Finally, managers could enhance collective efficacy by providing their teams with positive feedback if possible.
Strong points, limitations, and future directions
Strong points. This research has several strengths. First of all, I collected the data in a
field setting whereby the respondents worked in their natural work environment, had experience in performing their jobs, and the teams had very diverse and varied activities. Second, the response rates of both the questionnaires for team members and the questionnaires for the team managers were high. Therefore, the data presented a representative view of the organization. Finally, most research on the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance is conducted in profit organizations. In contrast, this research focused on the non-profit sector. Thereby, this research contributes to the generalizability of the effects of collective efficacy on team performance across teams in different work settings.
Limitations. I should recognize the limitations of this research. First, all of the
was conducted. The research is conducted amongst almost all teams of the municipality of Assen and it could be that the given effort by teams does not cause much difference for the performance of teams. Since the organization is a government institution, it is presumable that a lot of responsibilities and tasks of teams are subject to rules and procedures. These rules and procedures and the extent to which they function properly possibly influence the performance of teams more than the given effort by teams.
Future directions. Since I did not find support for the mediating role of team effort in
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37: 122-147.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F.J. 1991. Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60: 941-951.
Bartko, J.J. 1966. Intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological
Reports, 19: 3-11.
Bartko, J.J. 1976. On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological
Bulletin, 83: 762-765.
Blau, G. 1993. Operationalizing direction and level of effort and testing their relationships to individual job performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55: 152-170.
Brown, S.P., & Leigh, T.W. 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 358-368. . Cannon-Bowers, J.A., & Salas, E. 2001. Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22: 195-202.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. 1982. Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92: 111-135. Chapanis, A. 1964. Knowledge of performance as an incentive in repetitive, monotonous tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48: 263-267.
Chen, G., & Bliese, J.D. 2002. The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 549-556.
DeRue, D.S., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., & Feltz, D. 2010. Efficacy dispersion in teams: Moving beyond agreement and aggregation. Personnel Psychology, 63: 1-40.
DeShon, R.P., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Schmidt, A.M., Milner, K.R., & Wiechmann, D. 2004. A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 1035-1056.
Dickinson, T.L., & McIntyre, R.M. 1997. A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In M.T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance and
measurement: Theory, methods, and applications: 19-43. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Durham, C.C., Locke, E.A., Poon, J.M.L., & McLeod, P.L. 2009. Effects of group goals and time pressure on group efficacy, information-seeking strategy, and performance. Human
Performance, 13: 115-138.
Fuller, M.A., Hardin, A.M., & Davison, R.M. 2006. Efficacy in technology-mediated distributed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23: 209-235.
Georgopoulos, B.S. 1986. Organizational structure, problem solving, and effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gibson, C.B. 1999. Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 138-152. Greenlees, I., Graydon, J., & Maynard, I. 2010. The impact of individual efficacy beliefs on group goal selection and group goal commitment. Journal of Sport Sciences, 18: 451-459. Gully, S.M., Devine, D.J., & Whitney, D.J. 1995. A meta-analysis of cohesion and
performance – Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26: 497-520.
Gully, S.M., Joshi, A., Incalcaterra, K.A., & Beaubien, J.M. 2002. A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 819-832.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. 1993. Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-309.
Jong, B.A. de, & Elfring, T. 2010. How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 535-549.
Katz-Navon, T.Y., & Erez, M. 2005. When collective- and self-efficacy affect team performance: The role of task interdependence. Small Group Research: An International
Journal of Theory, Investigation, and Application, 36: 437-465.
Kiggundu, M.N. 1983. Task interdependence and job design – Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31: 145-172.
Klein, H.J. 1989. An integrated control-theory model of work motivation. Academy of
Management Review, 14: 150-172.
Klein, H.J., Wesson, M.J., Hollenbeck, J.R., & Alge, B.J. 1999. Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84: 885-896.
Kleingeld, A., Mierlo, H. van., & Arends, L. 20011. The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1289-1304.
Knight, D., Durham, C.C., & Locke, E.A. 2001. The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 44: 326-338.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Ilgen, D.R. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7: 77-124.
LePine, J.A., Picollo, R.F., Jackson, C.L., Mathieu, J.E., & Saul, J.R. 2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with
teameffectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61: 273-307.
Lester, S.W., Meglino, B.M., & Korsgaard, M.A. 2002. The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of
Locke, E.A. 1991. The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 288-299.
Mangos, P.M., & Steele-Johnson, D. 2001. The role of subjective task complexity in goal orientation, self-efficacy, and performance relations. Human Performance, 14: 169-186. Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Zaccaro, S.J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356-376.
Maynard, D.C., & Hakel, M.D. 1997. Effects of objective and subjective task complexity on performance. Human Performance, 10: 303-330.
Mulvey, P.W., & Klein, H.J. 1998. The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 74: 62-87.
Myers, N.D., Feltz, D.L., & Short, S.E. 2004. Collective efficacy and team performance: A longitudinal study of collegiate football teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 8: 126-138.
Myers, N.D., Payment, C.A., & Feltz, D.L. 2004. Reciprocal relationships between collective efficacy and team performance in women’s ice hockey. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 8: 182-195.
Ng, T.W.H., & Feldman, D.C. 2010. Organizational tenure and job performance. Journal of
Management, 36: 1220-1250.
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J.J., & Frink, D.D. 1994. A review of the influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1285-1301. Prussia, G.E., & Kinicki, A.J. 1996. A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 187-198.
Rapp, T.L., Bachrach, D.G., Rapp, A.A., & Mullins, R. 2014. The role of team goal monitoring in the curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 976-987.
Riggs, M.L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. 1994. Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C., & Van Dyne, L. 1993. Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 61-72.
Stajkovic, A.D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A.J. 2009. Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94: 814-828.
Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. 1974. The role of task-goal attributes in employee performance.
Psychological Bulletin, 81: 434-452.
Stone, D.N. 1994. Overconfidence in initial self-efficacy judgments: Effects on decision processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59: 452-474.
Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G.H. 2007. The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 17-27.
Vegt, G.S. van der., & Bunderson, J.S. 2005. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 532-547.
Vegt, G.S. van der., Jong, S.B. de., Bunderson, J.S., & Molleman, E. 2010. Power asymmetry and learning in teams: The moderating role of performance feedback. Organization Science, 21: 347-361.
Vegt, G.S. van der., Vliert, E. van der., & Oosterhof, A.A.D. 2003. Informational
dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 715-727.
Wood, R.E. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 37: 60-82.
