Collective Efficacy and Aspects of Shared Mental Models as Predictors of Performance Over Time in Work Groups

Abstract

We assessed collective efficacy (a group's judgment of their ability to perform a particular task) and some dimensions of shared mental models (models of the group structure, process and the task, that members hold in common) in student groups working on semester-long research projects. In particular, we assessed the extent to which group members had agreement and accuracy about members' past and future contributions to the group project, and agreement about the importance of various task aspects. Groups with higher efficacy early in the semester had more agreement and accuracy later in the semester. However, the reverse was not true; the extent to which agreement and accuracy developed early in the semester was not correlated with collective efficacy later in the semester. Also, groups with higher collective efficacy (as measured early and late in the semester) and more shared mental models (as measured late in the semester) received higher grades on their projects. A number of task process and social process variables were tested as possible mediators of these relationships; however, no significant mediators were found.

Effective self‐regulating teams: a generative psychological approach

“…It is nonetheless important to note that collective efficacy is a team level construct rather than an aggregate of individual levels of self-efficacy (Zaccaro et al, 1995). Collective efficacy leads a team to establish higher goals, to exert more effort in the pursuit of these goals and to demonstrate greater persistence in case of any failure or negative feedback (e.g., Peterson, Mitchell, Thompson & Burr, 2000) which aligns with Proposition 1a). Marks (1999), has also reported improved inter-member coordination in teams with high efficacy with beneficial consequences for performance of especially novel tasks.…”

“…Watson, Chemers and Preiser (2001) showed that collective efficacy can be based on perceptions of individual member proven efficacy in newly formed (e.g., sports) teams, but will eventually evolve its own supra-ordinate reality (with a correspondingly weakening impact of self-efficacy on team performance). Finally there is also some evidence showing that collective efficacy early on in a team process can furnish the development of shared mental models (Peterson et al, 2000) suggesting that shared mental models may in part mediate the impact of collective efficacy on performance.…”

On the same page: The value of paid and volunteer leaders sharing mental models in churches

“…A third limitation is the use of a survey to capture task processes. Although this is a commonly used approach in assessing shared mental models (Peterson, Mitchell, Thompson, and Burr, 2000;Yoo and Kanawattanachai, 2001;Levesque, Wilson, and Wholey, 2001), surveys have distinct disadvantages. For example, they present issues in the researcher's voice, not the informant's.…”

Adaptation and Cognition of High-Risk Environment Teams in an Input-Mediator-Outcome Framework

“…Again, in order to stay on the most general level, collective efficacy is the term used here to describe the psychological outcome of adaptation. Collective efficacy reflects the group's anticipation that it will do well on a particular task (Peterson et al, 2000). While it is widely accepted that a higher level of collective efficacy will result in a high level of task execution, our model also reflects the other direction of this relationship, namely that a high level of task execution will result in an increase in collective efficacy.…”