See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/6575587

The Development of Collective Efficacy in Teams: A Multilevel and

Longitudinal Perspective

Article  in  Journal of Applied Psychology · February 2007

DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.17 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
199 2,930

3 authors:

Kevin Tasa Simon Taggar

York University Wilfrid Laurier University
25 PUBLICATIONS   732 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   1,910 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gerard Seijts
The University of Western Ontario
68 PUBLICATIONS   2,230 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Political Skill: Teams and Negotiation View project

Goal Setting View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kevin Tasa on 25 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association
2007, Vol. 92, No. 1, 17–27 0021-9010/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.17

The Development of Collective Efficacy in Teams:

A Multilevel and Longitudinal Perspective

Kevin Tasa Simon Taggar

McMaster University Wilfrid Laurier University

Gerard H. Seijts
University of Western Ontario

The authors developed and tested a longitudinal multilevel model of collective efficacy formation. In 50
self-managing student teams, they investigated the effects of individual-level and team-level factors on
observed behaviors and the subsequent development of collective efficacy for mastering a complex team
task. Self-efficacy for teamwork, task-relevant knowledge, and collective efficacy predicted individual
teamwork behaviors (rated by peers). Aggregated measures of teamwork behavior were related to
subsequent collective efficacy, which was significantly related to final team performance.

Keywords: collective efficacy, team performance, multilevel, self-efficacy, task-relevant knowledge

Teams have become a common feature in many organizations
(Cohen & Bailey, 1997). A growing body of research suggests that
collective efficacy, which refers to a team’s shared perception of its
capability to successfully perform a specific task (Bandura, 1997),
influences team outcomes. Locke (1991) theorized that efficacy
beliefs, in conjunction with goals, constitute the “motivational
hub,” which represents the processes that most directly affect
action. According to Bandura (1997), collective efficacy can “in-
fluence 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 discour-
agement” (p. 418). Research consistently shows that efficacy be-
liefs contribute significantly to the level of motivation and perfor-
mance (Bandura & Locke, 2003).
Although scholars have demonstrated the link between collec-
tive efficacy and team performance (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, &
Beaubien, 2002), little is yet known about the factors responsible
for the development of collective efficacy. This is unfortunate
because a better understanding of the antecedents of collective
efficacy can help managers and team members more accurately
shape this important shared perception.
Bandura (1997) stated that determinants of efficacy beliefs
“operate in much the same way at the collective level as they do at
the individual level” (p. 478). According to this perspective, col-
lective efficacy is influenced by enactive mastery experience,
Kevin Tasa, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Ham-
ilton, Ontario, Canada; Simon Taggar, School of Business and Economics,
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; Gerard H. Seijts,
Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario, Canada.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kevin
Tasa, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton,
Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada. E-mail: tasa@mcmaster.ca
17
vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological and
affective states. However, there is strong reason to believe that the
development of efficacy beliefs may not be isomorphic at the
individual and team levels. Several researchers have suggested that
the factors that shape the evolution of collective efficacy may be
different from the antecedents of self-efficacy (Chen & Bliese,
2002; Gibson, 1999; Gully et al., 2002). Hence, there is a need to
initiate research that explores the determinants of collective efficacy.
In this article, we build on Gibson’s (1999) observation that
collective efficacy develops partly through exchanges of informa-
tion and observed behaviors within the team. Specifically, our
model of collective efficacy emergence, depicted in Figure 1,
states that, over time, collective efficacy is influenced by the
aggregate amount of teamwork behaviors in a team. As we explain
below, teamwork behaviors refer to individual activities that con-
tribute to team process. We expect that teams with higher levels of
aggregate teamwork behavior will have higher levels of collective
efficacy. Thus, our model begins by exploring the factors that
influence teamwork behaviors at the individual level. We then
assess how these behaviors, when aggregated to the team level,
influence collective efficacy beliefs and subsequent team perfor-
mance. The model is multilevel in nature, in response to Klein and
Kozlowski’s (2000) call for researchers to focus on team research
at multiple levels. The model proposes cross-level effects (Rous-
seau, 1985), whereby team-level constructs influence individual
behavior, which in turn, influences team-level perceptions and
performance (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995).
In our theorizing we followed Morgeson and Hofmann’s (1999)
guidelines for investigating the emergence of constructs at the
collective level. We start at the most elementary unit of analysis in
any social system—the individual behavioral act (Parsons, 1951).
In our case, these individual acts refer to teamwork behavior.
Moreover, as we will explain, self-efficacy for teamwork and
task-relevant knowledge may be determinants of the frequency
with which an individual performs teamwork behaviors. Next, we
consider context. In our longitudinal model, initial collective effi-
18 TASA, TAGGAR, AND SEIJTS
H1a
Individual Teamwork
Level Self-efficacy
Task-relevant
knowledge
H1c
Team
Level
Collective
Initial
Efficacy
Performance
T1
Time Period Week 2
Figure 1. Longitudinal multilevel model linking efficacy beliefs, behavior, and team performance. The time
period shown in the figure corresponds to the period in which the measures were assessed. H ⫽ hypothesis; T ⫽
time.
cacy and performance feedback can be considered group-level
contextual variables that affect individual behavior, but also affect
the nature of subsequent team interaction. Multilevel theorists refer
to this type of relationship as a top-down relationship (Klein &
Kozlowski, 2000). Lastly, we consider the role collective efficacy
plays in team performance.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) suggested that emergent
states such as collective efficacy are products of team experiences
and become new inputs to subsequent processes and outcomes.
The reciprocal interplay among team interactions and emergent
states at the collective level is likely to start with the observable
behaviors of individual team members. Seeing one’s teammates
perform behaviors that are generally accepted as helpful with
respect to team performance should instill a sense of confidence
about the team’s capability. Thus, we suggest that collective effi-
cacy is partly shaped by individual behaviors.
Teamwork behaviors contribute to the team’s task and goal
requirements. We draw attention to individual behaviors, rather
than the group-level notion of team processes, because individual-
level behaviors are directly observable by other members of a team
and thus are likely to be used by members when assessing the
overall capabilities of the team. Therefore, it is important to
understand the conditions that give rise to the performance of
individual teamwork behaviors.
Teamwork Behavior
What are the individual teamwork behaviors that contribute to
team performance? After an extensive review of the teams litera-
Individual
Teamwork
Behavior
H1b
Additive
Aggregation
Team-level
Teamwork
Behavior
H2
Collective H3
Team
Efficacy
Performance
T2
Week 5 Week 7 Week 10
ture, Stevens and Campion (1994) developed a typology of generic
or transferable knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) necessary
for teamwork that focused specifically on the individual team
member. They identified two broad categories of teamwork KSAs:
interpersonal KSAs (i.e., conflict resolution, collaborative
problem-solving, and communication) and self-management
KSAs (e.g., goal-setting and performance management, and plan-
ning and task coordination). Although possessing the knowledge,
skills and abilities to perform in a team may be important, it is the
translation of the KSAs into actual behaviors that ultimately con-
tributes to team performance. Thus, in this research we rely on
Stevens and Campion’s typology as a guiding framework for
assessing the visible teamwork behaviors performed by individual
team members. (The behaviors we used are presented in the
Appendix.)
As mentioned above, the KSAs identified by Stevens and Cam-
pion (1994) are fairly generic, or transportable (Cannon-Bowers,
Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995). Accordingly, behaviors such
as problem solving and performance management should contrib-
ute to team performance to varying degrees across a range of team
tasks. Stevens and Campion also suggested that the generic nature
of the teamwork KSAs would make them applicable to semiau-
tonomous, or self-managing, teams, the type of team used in the
present study.
Antecedents of Teamwork Behavior
At least three factors should be related to the extent to which an
individual engages in teamwork behavior. These factors are task-
relevant knowledge, self-efficacy for teamwork behaviors, and the
level of collective efficacy in the team.
 DEVELOPMENT OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
Task-relevant knowledge. One factor that is likely to influence
whether an individual displays teamwork behavior is his or her
level of task-relevant knowledge. Marks et al. (2001) argued that
member expertise is utilized through group processes to determine
emergent states such as collective efficacy. Similarly, research has
shown that a group has an ability to recognize the task-relevant
expertise residing in the group (Henry, 1995), and that groups with
a high level of task-relevant knowledge outperform those with low
levels of task-relevant knowledge (LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, &
Hedlund, 1997). Although it is far from clear how expertise is
recognized and linked to team performance, it is likely that team
members who know more about the team’s task and goal require-
ments will contribute more to discussions about the team’s task
and goals. Therefore, we posit that an individual’s task-relevant
knowledge is related to individual teamwork behavior.
Although knowledge relevant to the completion of the particular
task in question may motivate a team member’s participation,
social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) indicates that two percep-
tions should be related to a member’s motivation to engage in
teamwork behavior. These are the individual’s perceptions of his
or her ability to perform generic teamwork behaviors (i.e., self-
efficacy for teamwork), and perceptions regarding the team’s
possession of the resources necessary for completing the task (i.e.,
the level of collective efficacy of the team).
Self-efficacy for teamwork behavior. Self-efficacy refers to a
person’s belief that he or she can successfully perform the specific
behaviors necessary for successful task completion (Bandura,
1986). Research has consistently found that self-efficacy beliefs
determine whether an individual will choose to engage in certain
behavior, and, if so, how much effort is expended on that behavior
(Bandura, 1997). Therefore, consistent with Bandura’s (1986,
1997) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy for generic teamwork
behavior should predict the generic teamwork behaviors displayed
by a team member. For example, a team member with a high sense
of self-efficacy for actively engaging in problem-solving tasks
should work at constructively solving complex problems, more
than would a team member with low self-efficacy in this dimen-
sion.
Initial collective efficacy. Finally, we consider the contextual
role that early perceptions of collective efficacy play in determin-
ing the teamwork behavior of individual team members. Mowday
and Sutton (1993) characterized context as “stimuli and phenom-
ena that surround and thus exist in the environment external to the
individual, most often at a different level of analysis” (p. 198).
Because collective efficacy is a comprehensive judgment that is
derived from knowledge about a team’s capabilities, resources,
and constraints, it may exert a top-down influence on individual
teamwork behaviors. The extent to which individuals believe their
team has the capability to produce results or attain goals may affect
the degree to which they themselves will be motivated to demon-
strate the behaviors that are required for effective team perfor-
mance. Lindsley et al. (1995) suggested that such a cross-level
effect is possible because efficacious teams create a context in
which constructive individual behaviors are expected.
It should also be noted that performance feedback is usually
positively associated with collective efficacy (e.g., Gully et al.,
2002). A central tenet of social cognitive theory is that enactive
mastery (e.g., feedback on performance attainments) and efficacy
perceptions are reciprocally related (Bandura, 1997). Past studies
19
using longitudinal designs support the reciprocal relationship be-
tween feedback and efficacy perceptions at the team level (e.g.,
Seijts, Latham, & Whyte, 2000; Tasa & Whyte, 2005). In addition,
this relationship might be most predictive when performance feed-
back is directed at the team as a whole. For example, when a team
wins or loses a game or contest, this feedback is likely to directly
affect collective efficacy because it speaks to whether the team as
a whole can succeed. Thus, we expect that initial team-level
performance feedback is related to collective efficacy, which, in
turn, crosses levels and has a direct influence on individual team-
work behavior.
The discussion to this point leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: An individual’s teamwork behavior is predicted by (a)
his or her level of teamwork self-efficacy, (b) his or her level of
task-relevant knowledge, and (c) the initial level of collective efficacy
in the team.
Teamwork Behavior and Collective Efficacy
Hypothesis 1 describes the relationship between two individual-
level independent variables, a team-level independent variable,
and the dependent variable of individual behaviors. As Figure 1
shows, we further suggest that collective efficacy has emergent
properties that are rooted in the teamwork behaviors displayed by
each team member. Thus, to understand the evolution of collective
efficacy perceptions, we must understand the factors that drive
individual behavior. In this sense, our model combines top-down
(macro to micro) and bottom-up (micro to macro) perspectives of
collective efficacy emergence. Next, we describe how between-
group differences in teamwork behaviors may affect the formation
of subsequent collective efficacy and team performance.
In forming a self-efficacy belief, a person assesses the availabil-
ity of specific resources (e.g., skill level and knowledge of task-
relevant strategies) and the constraints that apply (e.g., conflicting
job demands, time) when performing the task (Gist & Mitchell,
1992). Taggar and Seijts (2003) suggested that the process of
assessing personal and situational resources and constraints de-
scribed by Gist and Mitchell is also relevant at the team level.
Taggar and Seijts theorized that during team interaction, individ-
uals collect information not only about their own capabilities
around teamwork behavior and assumed roles (e.g., leader, facil-
itator, critical evaluator), but also about other team members’
task-relevant competencies. Task-relevant behaviors are often
demonstrated in a public forum and hence can be readily incorpo-
rated into an individual’s assessment of collective efficacy.
We expect that in self-managing teams the development of
collective efficacy is, in part, an emergent process that is derived
from the observed behaviors and interactions that occur among
team members. For example, if a team member observes that his or
her peers are actively participating in team-related activities such
as managing deadlines, coordinating activities, collaboratively
solving problems, and assuming leadership roles, then that team
member’s collective efficacy belief should theoretically increase.
This view is consistent with Gibson’s (1999) conjecture regarding
the formation of collective efficacy through an exchange and
assimilation of information. She explained that “group-efficacy
forms as group members collectively acquire, store, manipulate,
and exchange information about each other and about their task,
context, process, and prior performance” (p. 138). Conversely, the
20 TASA, TAGGAR, AND SEIJTS
absence of such teamwork behaviors would cast doubt in the
minds of the team members about the group’s capability to pull
together and successfully complete the task.
When team members consider the overall capabilities of their
team, they may partly base their perceptions of collective efficacy
on beliefs about their teammates’ teamwork-behavior levels. Team
members’ collective efficacy may increase (or decrease) if they
observe their colleagues demonstrating (or failing to demonstrate)
performance-relevant teamwork behaviors. This assessment of
other people’s capabilities is one of the antecedents of collective
efficacy that does not function as an antecedent of self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 2: At the team level, aggregated teamwork behavior is
positively related to subsequent collective efficacy.
Collective Efficacy and Team Performance
A meta-analysis by Gully et al. (2002) showed that the relation-
ship between collective efficacy and team performance was posi-
tive and significant (␳ ⫽ .41). According to social cognitive
theory, efficacy is a primary determinant of the extent to which
individuals or teams are likely to put forth the effort required to
perform successfully (Bandura, 1986). Therefore, to ensure that
our model is consistent with past research, we hypothesized that
the level of collective efficacy, assessed after the team members
had been working together for several weeks, would predict final
team performance.
Hypothesis 3: Collective efficacy is positively related to subsequent
team performance.
Method
Participants
Participants were 191 business students enrolled in four sections
of an upper-level Human Resource Management (HRM) course.
All four sections were taught by the same instructor, who was
blind to the study’s hypotheses. As part of the course requirements,
participants were assigned to teams (N ⫽ 50) of 3 or 4 individuals.
To maximize the breadth of within-team expertise and reduce the
potential for self-selection bias, we formed teams by randomly
drawing names from major-specific lists (e.g., finance, marketing,
engineering) in sequence. In total, 77% of the participants were
enrolled in the business program, and 23% were in a combined
engineering and management program. The average age of the
participants was 21.7 years (SD ⫽ 1.1), and 59% of the partici-
pants were male.
Although participants had to work on the simulation as part of
a course requirement, participation in the study was voluntary.
Participants received a 2% bonus mark in exchange for their
self-reported data. The response rates to the questionnaires that we
distributed at Weeks 2 and 7 were, in both instances, 90%. None
of the 50 teams had more than one team member who did not
respond to either survey. The minimum group size was three
persons because the response rate in the three-person groups was
100%.
Simulation and Procedures
A primary objective of the study was to assess the development
of collective efficacy over time. We therefore studied the teams as
they worked on a longitudinal simulation over a 10-week period.
The simulation, called the Human Resource Management Simula-
tion, was developed by Smith and Golden (2001), and it began
following the third week of the course. The pedagogical purpose of
the simulation is to create a realistic context in which students
must translate course content, covering such issues as selection and
reward systems, into team solutions and decisions for improving
the performance of the HRM department. All teams were told by
the course instructor that their performance on the simulation
would largely be determined by the extent to which they were able
to discern linkages among the various HRM topics covered in the
course. The course content that was most relevant to the simulation
was presented either prior to group formation (e.g., strategic HRM,
selection and HRM planning) or during the first few weeks of the
simulation (e.g., compensation, training and performance ap-
praisal). Furthermore, participants were told that the algorithms
which determine performance on the simulation are carefully mod-
eled from current theories of human resources and management. A
25-page player’s manual containing information on the nature of
the company, industry, and simulation procedures reinforced these
instructions.
Teams assumed the role of the human resource management
department in a manufacturing organization and were required to
make weekly operational decisions on issues such as wage in-
creases or decreases, hiring, fringe benefits, performance ap-
praisal, and training. Each weekly set of decisions corresponded to
one quarter of a simulated fiscal year. Teams were given an equal
yearly budget and thus had to make their decisions under con-
straints of finite resources. Although the simulation permits a team
to spend in excess of their budget in a given quarter, teams were
penalized for running a deficit in the last quarter of a given fiscal
year. Each team performed the simulation for 8 simulated quarters
(or 2 fiscal years) over the 10-week period. No simulation deci-
sions were made during Week 5, due to midterm exams, or Week
7, due to other classroom activities.
For each of the weekly decision periods, the teams had two
primary tasks. The first task was to make choices about allocating
resources to each of the HRM-specific issues in the simulation.
Teams were required to submit their decisions on a standardized
form. These decisions were then entered into a computer program
by the course instructor. The second task was to complete a weekly
“incident report.” Each incident report required the team to make
choices among alternative options on one-time issues such as how
to design a new job-analysis program or the format of a new
compensation scheme. Each incident had discrete options that
could be chosen, and the choice had to be justified in a one-page
written summary. These incidents were graded by the course
instructor and returned for developmental purposes, and had no
effect on simulation performance.
Performance feedback was returned within three days so that
each team had ample time to prepare for the next decision period.
Feedback was primarily quantitative, including such indicators as
employee morale, product quality, productivity, employee turn-
over, budget surpluses or deficits, and the number of grievances
filed in the simulation. For each indicator, the teams were provided
with the industry average. More detail on how the omnibus mea-
sure of team performance was assessed and presented to the
participants is described below in the Measures section.
 DEVELOPMENT OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
A team’s performance on the HRM simulation accounted for
10% of each team member’s final course grade. Individual team
members had an incentive to actively participate because teams
had an opportunity to complete, at the end of the simulation, an
anonymous peer evaluation justifying why some members should
not share the grade equally. There were no teams that chose to do
so. One-third of the class time in each week (50 minutes) was
given to participants to work on the simulation. During a session
at the end of the course in which we described the nature of the
study, participants suggested, by an informal show of hands, that
they spent between 30 and 90 minutes per week working on the
simulation outside of class time.
The simulation was appropriate for this study for several rea-
sons. First, consistent with Wood’s (1986) criteria of task com-
plexity, the simulation is highly complex in terms of component,
dynamic, and coordinative complexity. For example, team perfor-
mance is not increased solely through effort and persistence. For
teams to do well, they had to repeatedly monitor the relationship
between changes to a multitude of simulation-specific indicators
and subsequent feedback from the simulation with respect to
performance. Second, since groups usually outperform individuals
on heuristic problem-solving tasks (Laughlin, Bonner & Miner,
2002; Kerr & Tindale, 2004), the longitudinal nature of the sim-
ulation provided greater opportunity for team members to question
assumptions, reframe problems, think about ideas and problems
using novel approaches, stimulate avenues of thought that other
group members may not otherwise pursue, and successively im-
prove ideas (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971;
Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1998; Torrance, 1988). Finally, the sim-
ulation enacts realistic and frequently occurring scenarios, in
which groups must make iterative decisions in the context of finite
resources. The use of realistic tasks or simulations increases the
extent to which results are generalizable to settings beyond the
classroom or laboratory (Locke, 1986).
Measures
Teamwork behaviors. Measures of teamwork behavior were
taken near the end of the simulation (Week 7 of the simulation)
because by this time the participants had attained experience with
the task and had also had ample time to observe their fellow team
members. Peer appraisals were used for assessing behaviors. Par-
ticipants were asked to rate the frequency with which each of their
fellow team members engaged in 12 teamwork behaviors during
the simulation. Scale scores could range from 1 (almost never) to
7 (almost always). This procedure is consistent with Neuman and
Wright (1999) and Taggar and Seijts (2003). Item scores were
averaged to derive a composite behavioral measure for each indi-
vidual. The coefficient alpha for the behavioral measure was .93.
We drew the 12 items (see Appendix) from a 46-item behavioral
observation scale (BOS) developed by Taggar and Brown (2001).
The 46 items are critical incidents of actually observed perfor-
mance-relevant team member behaviors displayed in student
teams. We assembled the 12-item list based on three consider-
ations. First, a 46-item peer-appraisal BOS could have led to rater
fatigue because members of most teams would have had to make
138 ratings (3 peers ⫻ 46 items). Second, not all items of the
Taggar and Brown measure were relevant for the task used in the
present study. Finally, the 12 items represent the interpersonal and
21
performance management domains of the Stevens and Campion
(1994) typology.
To assess the level of inter-rater agreement on the behavioral
ratings, we calculated the rwg coefficient (James, Demaree, &
Wolf, 1984) for each participant on each of the 12 behavioral
items. The average coefficient across all ratings and participants
was .84, with a range of .38. There is debate regarding an appro-
priate cutoff point for rwg coefficients. In the present study, over
95% of all rwg coefficients were above the commonly used .70
threshold (see Castro, 2002). We examined the cases in which the
rwg score was below .70 and found that low scores, usually just
below .70, were not specific to a few teams or individuals. We
therefore did not omit low-scoring individuals or teams from the
sample. In conclusion, team members appeared to agree on which
individuals demonstrated high levels of the behaviors of interest
(and which individuals did not).
Teamwork self-efficacy. Teamwork self-efficacy was mea-
sured after the 2nd week of group formation. Gist and Mitchell
(1992) argued that efficacy measurement must be tailored to the
domain being studied. Therefore, the measure assessed each team
member’s degree of confidence in his or her capabilities to per-
form the 12 specific behaviors included in the teamwork behavior
scale. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they felt
confident that they could exhibit each of those teamwork behav-
iors. Responses were made on 7-point Likert-type scales. Scale
scores could range from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so). The
coefficient alpha for the scale was .80.
Task-relevant knowledge. Because the course content was rel-
evant to the performance of the simulation, knowledge of the
course content was used to represent task-relevant knowledge. As
part of the course requirements, participants completed a multiple-
choice exam covering topics in HRM at Week 5 of the simulation
(Week 8 of the course). A measure of task-relevant knowledge was
created using the score, ranging from 0 to 100, on the exam.
Collective efficacy. Collective efficacy was assessed twice, at
Weeks 2 and 7 of the simulation. We measured collective efficacy at
Week 2, rather than at the time of group formation, to allow individ-
uals to become familiar with their team members, their team roles,
and the nature of the simulation. Consistent with Bandura’s (1997)
recommendations, we developed a measure of collective efficacy that
assessed both magnitude and strength with regard to achieving pro-
gressively more difficult team performance levels. Participants were
provided with nine performance levels, defined by placement within
the top 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, or 5 teams participating in the
simulation (e.g., “I believe that the team can finish the simulation in
at least the top 10 teams”). Collective efficacy magnitude was opera-
tionalized as the total number of “Yes” answers to the nine items
described above (“Yes” ⫽ 1, and “No” ⫽ 0). Collective efficacy
strength was the sum of the rating scores across the nine performance
levels. The ratings were made in terms of a continuous 100-point scale
(0 ⫽ “no confidence at all,” and 100 ⫽ “complete confidence”).
Correlations between the magnitude and strength scores were r ⫽ .85,
p ⬍ .01, at Week 2 and r ⫽ .89, p ⬍ .01, at Week 7. Thus, the sums
of the magnitude and strength scores were independently standard-
ized, then summed, to create the measure of collective efficacy.
Team performance. Teams were informed at the outset by the
course instructor that their performance on the simulation would
be determined by combining their rankings on 10 indicators. The
10 indicators were Absenteeism, Turnover Percentage, Accident
22 TASA, TAGGAR, AND SEIJTS

Rate, Morale, Productivity, Quality Index, Unit Cost, Percentage
of Female Employees, Percentage of Minority Employees, and
Grievances. Each indicator had its own index, and each team
started the simulation at the same point on each indicator. For
example, the Morale index began at a score of 50 and could go as
high as 100. The Turnover index was expressed as a percentage,
with higher percentages reflecting poorer results. The 10 indicators
were, on average, highly correlated (r ⫽ .56). The simulation
creates an omnibus measure of performance that can range be-
tween 0 and 100, based on equal weighting of the 10 indicators.
This measure was reported to each team, along with the overall
average score, after each weekly decision period. This method
drew a participant’s attention to the overall performance of the
HRM department, rather than performance on only one or two
indicators. We refer to the omnibus Week 2 measure as initial
performance and the Week 10 measure as team performance.
In addition to the omnibus measure of performance, a rank
ordered measure of performance was publicly presented to all the
teams during class time (using an overhead projector) at Weeks 2
and 10. During Week 2, this rank ordered measure was presented
several days before team members were asked to assess their
perceptions of collective efficacy. This measure was helpful in
forming accurate efficacy perceptions because it provided stronger
social comparison information regarding performance than an
overall average (see Wood & Bandura, 1989). The rank measure
correlated highly with the omnibus measure at both time periods
(r ⫽ .82, p ⬍ .01 at Week 2; r ⫽ .83, p ⬍ .01 at Week 10).
Data Aggregation Issues
Two variables in this study, teamwork behavior and collective
efficacy, were measured at the individual level and subsequently
aggregated to represent a group-level construct. To justify our
procedure for treating variables measured at the individual level as
having group-level properties, we relied on Chan’s (1998) typol-
ogy of composition models. Below we explain for each variable
the relevance of Chan’s typology to our data, and the procedures
we used to illustrate the group-level properties of the aggregated
measures.
Teamwork behaviors. Chan (1998) argued that an additive ag-
gregation model (using the mean of individual-level variables as a
group-level variable) is appropriate when the theoretical interest is the
magnitude of an effect at the group level. Following Chan, we used
the average of individual teamwork behaviors to represent team-level
teamwork behavior. This is because we assumed that the amount of
teamwork behavior exhibited by each individual member increases
the collective pool of that behavior. Characterizing a team as high in
teamwork behavior would mean that, taking the team as a unit,
members would display high amounts of teamwork behavior. This
does not imply that all team members display high teamwork behav-
ior, but merely that there are at least some members whose scores
elevate the average for the team (e.g., Neuman & Wright, 1999, p.
384). As suggested by Bliese (2000), we computed intraclass corre-
lations (ICCs) to determine the reliability of the team-level teamwork
behavior measure. The ICC(1) coefficient, which represents the de-
gree of variability in responses at the individual level that is attributed
to team membership, was .30. The ICC(2) coefficient, which repre-
sents the reliability of the team-level means, was .65. These results
support the aggregation of teamwork behavior.
Collective efficacy. According to Chan (1998), a direct con-
sensus model is a composition model in which individual ratings
of a higher level phenomenon are used to represent the higher level
construct. To be theoretically valid, direct consensus models must
contain a suitable degree of within-group agreement (Chan, 1998;
Gibson, Randel & Earley, 2000). The ICC(1) coefficients for the
collective efficacy measures were .38 at Week 2 and .46 at Week
7, and the ICC(2) coefficients were .71 and .77, respectively.
These results show that collective efficacy displayed an appropri-
ate degree of within-group agreement relative to between-group
variance, and thus support aggregation of individual-level data to
the team level (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
Results
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations
among study variables at the individual and team levels. Each of
the reported correlations is in the expected direction.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliability Coefficients

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5

Individual-level measures

1. Teamwork self-efficacy 5.23 0.72 (.80)

2. Teamwork behavior 4.81 0.92 .25** (.93)
3. Task-relevant knowledge 71.74 9.29 .20* .24** —

Team-level measures

1. Average teamwork behavior 4.81 0.64 —

2. Collective efficacy (Week 2) 0.01 1.45 .33* —
3. Collective efficacy (Week 7) 0.05 1.52 .44** .53** —
4. Initial performance (Week 2) 54.55 10.04 .20 .40** .48** —
5. Team performance (Week 10) 58.40 12.32 .29* .29* .57** .33* —

Note. For individual-level measures, n ⫽ 175; for team-level measures, n ⫽ 50. Numbers in parentheses are
coefficient alphas.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
 DEVELOPMENT OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
Because the dependent variable in Hypothesis 1 was at the
individual level, and the independent variables were both individ-
ual and team level, we analyzed the data using hierarchical linear
modeling (HLM 5; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). As suggested by
Hofmann, Griffin, and Gavin (2000), we first tested a null model
that had no predictors at either Level 1 (the individual level) or
Level 2 (the team level). This null model is analogous to an
analysis of variance in that it partitions variance in teamwork
behavior into within-team (⌽2) and between-team (␶) components.
The estimate of between-team variance is the intraclass correlation
coefficient and is computed as the proportion of between-teams
over the total variance (⌽2 ⫹ ␶). A test of the significance level of
the Level 2 residual variance of the intercept (␶00 ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .01)
was significant. Also, the ICC(1) was .28, indicating that 28% of
the variance in individual teamwork behavior resided between
teams, and 72% of the variance resided within teams. The signif-
icant between-team variance provided justification for testing the
full model.
Hypotheses 1a to 1c
Hypotheses 1a to 1c predict that individual teamwork behavior
is related to individual-level variables (self-efficacy and task-
relevant knowledge) and a team-level variable (collective effi-
cacy). We estimated an HLM model in which the individual-level
antecedents were the Level 1 predictors, and then regressed the
intercept coefficient obtained from Level 1 on the Level 2 variable,
collective efficacy. As Table 2 shows, teamwork self-efficacy
(␤ ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .05), task-relevant knowledge (␤ ⫽ .03, p ⬍ .01),
and collective efficacy (␥ ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .05) demonstrated a signif-
icant relationship with individual teamwork behavior. Hence, Hy-
potheses 1a to 1c were supported.
We also calculated the total variance explained by the full model
(R2total) using the following formula (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992):
2
Rwithin-team ⫻ [1 – ICC(1)] ⫹ Rbetween-team
2
⫻ ICC(1). The two
individual-level antecedents explained 22% of the within-team
variance in teamwork behavior, and collective efficacy explained
55% of the between-team variance. Thus, using the R2total formula,
the full model explained 31% of the total variance in teamwork
behavior.
Hypotheses 2 and 3
Hypothesis 2 states that aggregated teamwork behavior is sig-
nificantly related to collective efficacy, and Hypothesis 3 states
that collective efficacy is positively related to team performance.
Table 2
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results for Individual Teamwork Behavior
Variable
Intercept
Teamwork self-efficacy (Hypothesis 1a)
Task-relevant knowledge (Hypothesis 1b)
Collective efficacy (Week 2; Hypothesis 1c)
Note. Individuals n ⫽ 175, teams n ⫽ 50. Entries are estimations of the fixed effects with robust standard
errors.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
23
As shown in Figure 2, we tested these hypotheses within the
context of a structural equation model based on the team-level
relationships proposed in Figure 1. We did not use a latent variable
approach due to sample size limitations and because two of the
five variables (initial and final performance) were directly mea-
sured. Instead, we tested the model as a path analysis using
structural equation modeling. The first model, based on the paths
shown in Figure 1, fit the data only moderately well, ␹2(5, N ⫽ 50)
⫽ 11.51, p ⬍ .05 (root-mean-square error of approximation
[RMSEA] ⫽ .16; goodness-of-fit index [GFI] ⫽ .92; comparative
fit index [CFI] ⫽ .92).
Because social cognitive theory states that performance and
efficacy are closely related, we added an additional path from
initial performance to collective efficacy at Week 7. This second
model resulted in an improved degree of fit to the data, ␹2(4, N ⫽
50) ⫽ 4.26, p ⬍ .37 (RMSEA ⫽ .04; GFI ⫽ .97; CFI ⫽ .99), and
it suggests that initial performance relates not only to initial
collective efficacy, but also to collective efficacy that is assessed
five weeks later. Figure 2 shows that all of the paths in the model
are statistically significant. In particular, the significant paths from
teamwork behavior to collective efficacy and from collective ef-
ficacy to final team performance support Hypotheses 2 and 3.
Discussion
A growing body of research suggests that collective efficacy
does for teams what self-efficacy does for individuals. That is,
collective efficacy has properties that relate to teams through such
motivational elements as choice of activities, effort expended, and
degree of persistence when results fail to meet expectations (Kan-
fer, 1990). Thus, the question of how collective efficacy develops
over time has both theoretical and practical implications. Our study
extends past research by relating teamwork behavior to the emer-
gence of collective efficacy from a cross-level perspective.
Theoretical Implications
The first theoretical implication of the present study pertains to
the determinants of self-efficacy and collective-efficacy beliefs in
teams. Although self-efficacy and collective efficacy are each
related to performance, the antecedents of self-efficacy and
collective-efficacy perceptions can differ, depending on the level
of analysis and the criterion for measuring performance. Self-
efficacy processes are conceptualized as occurring primarily at the
intraindividual level via social and cognitive processes (Bandura,
1997). For example, individuals working within teams will assess
Coefficient SE t
4.79 .08 56.93**
0.25 .10 2.40* (df ⫽ 171)
0.03 .01 3.56** (df ⫽ 171)
0.12 .06 2.01* (df ⫽ 48)
24 TASA, TAGGAR, AND SEIJTS
.39*
Collective
Initial
Efficacy
Performance
T1
.32*
Time Period Week 2
Figure 2. Results of the team-level structural equation model. All of the reported paths are standardized
coefficients. T ⫽ time. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
their self-efficacy for teamwork by considering their own capabil-
ities and limitations for performing whatever task-demands are
placed on them. Collective efficacy development, on the other
hand, occurs primarily at the interindividual level. Collective ef-
ficacy evolves, in part, as the members of the team monitor
performance feedback and the extent to which the other members
of the team engage in teamwork behaviors. Our results suggest that
to understand the evolution of collective efficacy, we must assess
the factors that influence teamwork behavior.
A second contribution of this study is the finding that collective
efficacy appears to contextualize individual teamwork behavior. In
this study, initial collective efficacy was significantly associated
with the frequency with which individuals in the team engaged in
such activities as goal monitoring and developing action plans.
Therefore, it appears that individuals are more likely to be moti-
vated to engage in teamwork behaviors when they find themselves
in efficacious groups.
When performance feedback is directed to the team as a whole,
as it was in this study, the contextual role of collective efficacy as
it relates to individual behavior is likely strongest. The underlying
assumption in treating team performance feedback as a team-level
variable is that team members who receive common feedback are
exposed to similar evidence that their team can, or cannot, muster
whatever it takes to succeed. Thus, we expect that team members
are more likely to have a shared sense of collective efficacy when
performance feedback is team level than when performance feed-
back is individual level.
A third theoretical implication relates to linkages between per-
formance and collective efficacy. Our results support the notion of
performance and efficacy spirals proposed by Hackman (1990)
and further developed by Lindsley et al. (1995). Consistent with
the view that groups high in collective efficacy are likely to use
high-quality group processes, perform well, and yield increasing
collective efficacy and performance over time (Lindsley et al.,
1995), we found that high collective efficacy appears to motivate
greater performance-relevant team-member behavior in individual
team members. Thus, collective efficacy motivates, or demoti-
vates, individual team member behavior. Our model suggests that
Team-level
Teamwork
Behavior
.28*
.33* .58**
Collective
Team
Efficacy
Performance
T2
Week 7 Week 10
visible teamwork behaviors within the team may create or continue
spirals because they are assessed and incorporated into future
perceptions of collective efficacy.
Finally, our results support Marks et al. (2001), who claimed
that emergent states such as collective efficacy are not processes in
and of themselves because they do not describe how group mem-
bers interact while contributing to goal accomplishment. Rather,
teamwork behaviors serve as inputs into the collective develop-
ment of perceptions of group capability.
Limitations and Future Research
Several potential limitations of this study warrant consideration.
First, as predicted, performance feedback influenced ratings of
collective efficacy. This finding might raise concerns regarding the
extent to which individuals may have rated their group’s efficacy
in a biased manner. Indeed, research on the performance-cue bias
(see Staw, 1975; Lord & Maher, 1989; Martell & Evans, 2005) has
found that evaluative feedback systematically biases individuals’
ratings of group process. It is important to recognize, however, that
the performance feedback in our study was veridical, and thus
departs significantly from the methods applied by Staw and others,
in which group performance is held constant and the feedback
provided by the experimenter is deliberately false. Consequently,
these two streams of research differ significantly in both their
goals and their methodology. Bearing this in mind, there is little
reason to doubt that group performance levels affected perceptions
of group efficacy, just as they do perceptions of individual self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
Second, the nature of the simulation and the fact that the teams
were self-managing raises the possibility that the person with the
most HRM knowledge made all the team’s decisions. This would
be consistent with a disjunctive aggregation model in Steiner’s
(1972) task typology. On such tasks, only one person needs to
perform well in order for the team to succeed. To test this possi-
bility in our study, we examined the relationship between HRM
knowledge, as measured by the midterm exam result of the highest
scoring team member, and team performance. The correlation
 DEVELOPMENT OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
between the midterm grade of the highest scoring group member
and team performance was not statistically significant (r ⫽ .13,
p ⫽ .32). According to Steiner (1972), an additive model is one
whereby the mean level of a variable (in this case HRM knowl-
edge) may be the most appropriate aggregation model. An additive
task is structured such that the contribution of each member on a
variable may be added to a collective pool of that variable, which
can be drawn upon to contribute to team performance. The corre-
lation between average team score on the midterm and team
performance yielded a higher correlation coefficient (r ⫽ .17, p ⫽
.25) than the disjunctive model but was still not statistically sig-
nificant.
These results suggest that expertise, as measured by task-
relevant knowledge, does not appear to drive team performance.
Although research has shown that the relationship between collec-
tive efficacy and performance is strongest under conditions of high
task interdependence (Gully et al., 2002), we know relatively little
about how different task configurations relate to collective efficacy
and team outcomes. Thus, future research on the relationship
between collective efficacy emergence and task type is clearly
warranted. Similarly, we also suggest that future research should
explore whether teamwork behaviors relate to collective efficacy
in teams that have fewer opportunities for interaction (e.g., virtual
teams).
Third, the study participants were not HRM experts, and a
common criticism of studies using student samples is that the
results may fail to generalize to business settings. In discussing
generalizability with respect to this study, it is essential to consider
the fact that collective efficacy is a perception that explicitly
incorporates the group’s context and constraints. Though teams in
business settings are likely to face different, and perhaps more,
constraints than the student teams in our study (e.g., budgets, time,
policies, turnover), we note that such constraints are included in
collective efficacy perceptions. We also note that past studies of
collective efficacy have found it to be a robust predictor of team
performance in a wide range of field and laboratory settings (Gully
et al., 2002). Nevertheless, the generalizability of our results must
be assumed to be limited until empirical research explores other
variables that may relate to teamwork behavior and collective
efficacy.
Fourth, our results support the assertion that collective efficacy
plays a contextual role in shaping individual teamwork behavior. It
remains to be seen whether higher level organizational variables,
such as organizational culture and perceived managerial support,
relate to the emergence of collective efficacy. A recent study by
Chen and Bliese (2002) found that leadership climate exerted a
top-down influence on collective efficacy. Additional research
examining top-down processes at a higher level than the team
would not only enhance the generalizability of the current litera-
ture, but also respond to Johns’s (2006) call to increase the level of
contextual richness in organizational research.
Fifth, there may be partial same-source bias in our results
because the same team members that assessed collective efficacy
also completed the peer ratings of teamwork behavior. We are
cautiously optimistic, however, regarding the validity of the indi-
vidual teamwork behavior measure because it was significantly
correlated with measures that were not rated by the same source,
such as self-efficacy for teamwork and task-relevant knowledge.
25
Finally, because the independent variables were not manipu-
lated, we cannot say with certainty that they “caused” changes in
the dependent variables. In future research, we suggest using
interventions that manipulate teamwork behaviors to determine the
nature of their relationship with collective efficacy. In this way we
will be able to increase our confidence that these variables cause
change in collective efficacy.
Practical Implications
Our finding that teamwork behavior was significantly related to
collective efficacy, even after controlling for initial collective
efficacy, speaks to the practical importance of teamwork behavior
and interventions that encourage such behavior. Most complex
political and organizational decisions are made in groups because
they frequently outperform individuals in complex problem-
solving tasks (Henry, 1995; Laughlin et al., 2002; Kerr & Tindale,
2004). Our results suggest that to capitalize on the potential ad-
vantages offered by groups, organizations would be wise to ac-
tively develop good teamwork behavior rather than focus solely on
group outcome issues (e.g., improved efficiency or reduced error
rates). Researchers have developed typologies to delineate the
diverse types of behaviors found in different teams, with an aim
toward determining what leads to team effectiveness (e.g., Stevens
& Campion, 1994; Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997; Taggar & Brown, 2001).
We note that there are multiple ways to encourage the display of
these behaviors. Training programs that teach appropriate team-
work behavior are one way to increase teamwork skills. For
example, Chen, Donahue, and Klimoski (2004) found that a uni-
versity course geared towards teaching individual teamwork KSAs
had a significant impact on individual learning of the KSAs.
Managers who are creating self-managing teams can also work
to increase initial collective efficacy by selecting individuals who
have high self-efficacy for teamwork and high task-relevant
knowledge. In other words, designing effective teams should be
given the attention it deserves; too often, teams are loosely formed
without consideration of the goals the team is setting out to attain
or the KSAs that are needed. The result might be that the team
starts off at a performance disadvantage. Other interventions to
encourage team behaviors could include behavioral modeling by
the team leader (e.g., Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002) and the
fostering of a strong team culture, where peer pressure encourages
individuals to demonstrate particular team behaviors.
Finally, we highlight the practical implications of creating per-
ceptions of early success within the team. As our results showed,
teams that had better initial performance had higher initial collec-
tive efficacy. Initial collective efficacy, in turn, crossed levels and
had a significant impact on individual teamwork behavior. For
optimal performance from team members, managers should there-
fore encourage perceptions of “early wins.” It appears that a high
level of collective efficacy brings out the best in individuals in
terms of their teamwork behavior. Accordingly, it is in the orga-
nization’s best interests to positively shape the initial level of
collective efficacy within the team.
In conclusion, our findings are consistent with the theory of
collective structure, which states that “it is not the collective
construct, per se, that determines the behavior of individuals—
rather, it is the individuals (or collective) who determine the
collective construct, and, through their actions, influence the be-
26 TASA, TAGGAR, AND SEIJTS
havior of others in the collective” (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999, p.
251). Our results also suggest that initial levels of collective
efficacy are likely to have a long-lasting effect on how well teams
function and perform over time. Thus, understanding sources of
collective efficacy is critically important for predicting the long-
term prospects of the success of teams. Furthermore, collective
efficacy will change as a result of both performance feedback and
the behavior of team members. Even a highly efficacious team can
experience declining collective efficacy if its members do not
continue to actively participate. Poor teamwork behavior is likely
to result in a pattern of decreasing efficacy and performance over
time, in what Lindsley et al. (1995) termed “efficacy-performance
spirals.” On the other hand, such spirals can be positive and
characterized by increasing levels of collective efficacy and per-
formance.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effective-
ness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein
& S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349 –
381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models:
Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995).
Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In
R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making
in organizations (pp. 333–380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Castro, S. L. (2002). Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel
questions: A comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients, rwg(j),
hierarchical linear modeling, within- and between-analysis, and random
group resampling. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 69 –93.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition mod-
els. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246.
Chen, G. L., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of
leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for dis-
continuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549 –556.
Chen, G. L., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training under-
graduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 3, 27– 40.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group
effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal
of Management, 23, 239 –290.
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.
Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding group
efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group &
Organization Management, 25, 67–97.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis
of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review,
17, 183–211.
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A
meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdepen-
dence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819 – 832.
Hackman, J. R. (Ed.). (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t):
Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Henry, R. A. (1995). Improving group judgment accuracy: Information
sharing and determining the best member. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 62, 190 –197.
Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application
of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein
& S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 467–
511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship
between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into
the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553–585.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behav-
ior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386 – 408.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial/organizational psy-
chology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organi-
zational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision
making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623– 655.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.). (2000). Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and
new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002). Groups perform
better than the best individuals on Letters-to-Numbers problems. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 605– 620.
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects
of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-
making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
803– 811.
Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The anteced-
ents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of
newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
352–368.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy–perfor-
mance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Re-
view, 20, 645– 678.
Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lex-
ington, MA: Lexington Books.
Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the
motivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 50, 288 –299.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1989). Cognitive processes in industrial and
organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.
49 –91). New York: Wiley.
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.
Martell, R. F., & Evans, D. P. (2005). Source-monitoring training: Toward
reducing rater expectancy effects in behavioral measurement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 956 –963.
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing
pairs of words: Evidence of dependence between retrieval operations.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of
 DEVELOPMENT OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory
development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249 –250.
Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking
individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of
Psychology, 44, 195–229.
Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills
and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376 –389.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Mul-
tilevel and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: Vol. 7 (pp. 1–37). Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press.
Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., & Whyte, G. (2000). Effect of self- and group
efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human
Performance, 13, 279 –298.
Smith, J. R., & Golden, P. A. (2001). Human resource management
simulation: Player’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational
leadership and dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea generation
in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 111–
121.
Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general
alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Processes, 13, 414 – 432.
Appendix
Self-Efficacy for Teamwork and Teamwork Behavior Questionnaire Items
Reflecting on your past experience in all of the teams that you
have been on, please answer the following questions regarding the
extent to which you personally feel capable of exhibiting the below
behaviors. (1 ⫽ not at all; 7 ⫽ very much so)
1. Set time deadlines for achieving tasks
2. Take steps to ensure everyone participates in group
discussions
3. Take the group’s ideas and develop specific plans of action
4. Make correct judgments about connections in complex
situations
5. Participate in developing strategies to achieve team goals
6. Remind other team members of the team’s goal
7. Draw team members into discussions that are relevant to
achieving the goal
View publication stats
27
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability
requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource manage-
ment. Journal of Management, 20, 503–530.
Taggar, S., & Brown, T. C. (2001). Problem-solving team behaviors:
Development and validation of BOS and a hierarchical factor structure.
Small Group Research, 32, 698 –726.
Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2003). Leader and staff role-efficacy as
antecedents of collective efficacy and team performance. Human Per-
formance, 16, 131–156.
Tasa, K., & Whyte, G. (2005). Collective efficacy and vigilant problem
solving in group decision making: A non-linear model. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 119 –129.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psy-
chological perspectives (pp. 43–75). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60 – 82.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on
self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407– 415.
8. Ignore or discourage off-topic conversations
9. Steer team members towards on-topic conversations
10. Address conflict immediately by raising it for discus-
sion with other team members
11. Try to calm down team members that are in conflict
12. Assume leadership
Note. For the peer-rated teamwork behavior measure, each
participant was asked to rate their fellow team members according
to the frequency with which they displayed each of the 12 behav-
iors (1 ⫽ almost never, 7 ⫽ almost always).
Received October 28, 2005
Revision received March 17, 2006
Accepted March 27, 2006 䡲