The Effect of Collective Efficacy, Participatory Sense-Making, And Team Decision Quality on Team Performance

Year 2022, , 68 - 89, 27.02.2022

Mehmet Aytekin , Hakan Güvener

https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1023765

Cited By: 2

Abstract

This research aim is to analyze the effect of collective efficacy, participatory sense-making, and the role of decision quality on team performance through the moderator role of competition inside the team. Within this scope, the data is collected from employees of a public and a private hospital located in Gaziantep. 5 points Likert scale is used as a data collection method and a total of 445 surveys have been completed. Structural Equation Model is set to analyze the hypotheses of this research. Results showed that the collective efficacy and participatory sense making inside the team affected the team decision quality positively and also the team decision quality affected the team performance significantly. Additionally, it is found that there is a positive moderating role of decision quality between the effect of collective efficacy and participatory sense-making on team performance. Also, in this research, the mediation role of team hyper-competition has a role in both the effect of the collective efficacy and participatory sense-making on the team decision quality and the effect of the quality decision on the team performance.

Keywords

Team performance, Team decision quality, Collective efficacy, participatory sense-making.

Kolektif Etkinlik, Katılımcılık Duygusu ve Ekip Karar Kalitesinin Ekip Performansına Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı; kolektif etkinlik ve katılımcılık duygusunun, ekip performansına etkisinde karar kalitesinin aracılık ile ekipteki rekabet ortamının düzenleyici rolünün olup olmadığını tespit etmektir. Bu kapsamda çalışma; Gaziantep’teki bir kamu ve özel hastanede, kolayda örneklem yöntemiyle 445 sağlık çalışanından anket tekniği kullanılarak elde edilen veriler, yapısal eşitlik modeliyle analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan analizler sonucunda; kolektif etkinlik ve katılımcılık duygusunun ekip karar kalitesi ve ekip performansını, ekip karar kalitesinin de ekip performansını pozitif yönde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca kolektif etkinlik ve katılımcılık duygusunun ekip performansına etkisinde, karar kalitesinin kısmi aracılık etkisinin olduğu görülmüştür. Yine bu çalışmada kolektif etkinlik ve katılımcılığın ekip karar kalitesine etkisinde ve karar kalitesinin de ekip performansına etkisinde, yüksek rekabetin düzenleyici bir rolünün olduğu bulgularına ulaşılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre; ekipteki kolektif etkinlik ve katılımcılık duygusu artıkça, ekibin karar kalitesi artmakta ve ekipteki karar kalitesi arttıkça da ekip performansı artmaktadır. Ayrıca ekipte rekabet duygusu yüksek ise kolektif etkinliğin ekip karar kalitesine pozitif etkisi, negatif yöne dönüşmektedir. Yani yüksek rekabetin olduğu ekiplerde kolektif etkinlik, ekibin karar kalitesini düşürmekte ve dolayısıyla ekip performansı da düşmektedir.

Keywords

Kolektif Etkinlik, Katılımcılık Duygusu, Ekip Karar Kalitesi, Ekip Performansı

References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall:3.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Newyork: W.H. Freeman and Company: 18.
• Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1): 101.
• Barney, J.B., Ketchen, D.J., Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based theory: revitalization or decline? Journal of Management, 37 (5): 1304.
• Baron, R. ve Kenny, D. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research – conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6): 1173-1182.
• Becerikli, Y. (2013). Takım çalışmaları ve verimlilik ilişkisi: karar alma süreçlerinin etkinlik kazanmasında liderin rolü. Verimlilik Dergisi, (3): 93-116
• Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J., Humphrey, S., Moon, H., Conlan, D., Ilgen, D. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: toward a contingency approach. The Academy of Management Journal, 46 (5): 575.
• Berry, G. (2006). Can computer-mediated asynchronous communication improve team processes and decision-making? Learning from the management literature. Journal of Business Communication, 43 (4): 344.
• Chou, H., Lin, Y., Chou, S. (2012). Team cognition, collective efficacy, and performance in strategic decision-making teams. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40 (3): 383.
• Cortez, R.M. ve Johnston, W.J. (2019). Marketing role in B2B settings: evidence from advanced, emerging and developing markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34 ( 3): 608
• Durmuşoğlu, S. ve Barczak, G. (2011). The use of information technology tools in new product development phases: Analysis of effects on new product innovativeness, quality, and market performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 40 (2):321. Ergün, E., ve Eyisoy, M.E. (2019). Takım çalışma faktörlerinin takım performansı üzerindeki etkilerini belirlemek için bir araştırma. İşletme ve Yönetim Çalışmaları: Uluslararası Bir Dergi, 6, (49): 1460.
• Field, G. (1979). A critique of the Vroom–Yetton contingency model of leadership behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 4 (2):249.
• Filho, E. (2019). Team dynamic stheory: nomological network among cohesion, team mental models, coordination, and collective efficacy. Sport Sciences for Health, 15 (1):1.
• Gibbons, D. ve Weingart, L. (2001). Can I do it? will I try? Personal efficacy, assigned goals, and performance norms as motivators of individual performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31 (3):624.
• He, H., Baruch, Y., Lin, C. (2014). Modeling team knowledge sharing and team flexibility: the role of within-team competition. Human Relations, 67 (8): 947-948.
• Hunt, S.D. ve Morgan, R.M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition, Journal of Marketing, 59 (2): 4.
• Korkmaz, İ. (2012). Sosyal Öğrenme Kuramı. Eğitim Psikolojisi Gelişim-Öğrenme-Öğretim. Ed. Binnur Yeşilyaprak, Ankara, Pegem Akademi: 250
• Jones, G. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of organizational socialization: an interactionist perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 8 (3): 472
• Kalpic, B. ve Bernus, P. (2006). Business process modeling through the knowledge management perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10 (3):40.
• Kano, T. (2014). Extended mind and after: socially extended mind and actor–network. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48 (1): 50.
• Katz-Navon, T.Y. ve Erez, M. (2005). When collective- and self-efficacy affect team performance: the role of task inter dependence. Small Group Research, 36 (4): 437-465.
• Kao, R. (2017). Task-oriented work characteristics, self-efficacy, and service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: a cross-level analysis of moderating effect of social work characteristics and collective efficacy. Personnel Review, 46 (4): 725.
• Kerr, N. ve Tintale, S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55 (1):623.
• Kim, M. ve Shin, Y. (2015). Collective efficacy as a mediator between cooperative group norms and group positive affect and team creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32 (3):693.
• Kurtz, C. ve Snowden, D. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM System Journal, 42 (3):462.
• Li, J., Jia, L., Cai, Y., Kwan, H.K., You, S. (2020). Employee-organization relationships and team performance: role of team collective efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 206.
• Lim, B. ve Klein, K. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: a field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27 (4):403.
• Lin, C., Chen, K., Liu, C., Liao, C. (2019). Assessing decision quality and team performance: perspectives of knowledge internalization and resource adequacy. Review of Managerial Science, 13 (2): 377-393.
• Lindsley, D., Brass, D., Thomas, J. (1995). Efficacy-performing spirals: a multi-level perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3): 645.
• Malhotra, N.K. (1996). Marketing research an applied orientation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall:609 – 700.
• Mishra, P., ve Datta, B. (2011) Perpetual asset management of customer-based brande quity-the pam evaluator. Current Research Journal of Social Science, 3 (1): 40.
• McCauley-Smith, C., Williams, S., Gillon A., Braganza, A. (2015). Making sense of leadership development: developing a community of education leaders. Studies in Higher Education, 40 (2):311.
• Morgan, N.A. (2012). Marketing and business performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (1): 113.
• Myers, N.C., Feltz, D.Y., ve Short, S.E. (2004). Collective efficacy and team performance: a longitudinal study of collegiate football teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8 (2): 126-138.
• Rose, J. ve Norwich, B. (2013). Collective commitment and collective efficacy: a theoretical model for understanding the motivational dynamics of dilemma resolution in inter-professional work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44 (1):67.
• Ryckman, R., Hammer, M., Kaczor, L., Gold, J. (1996). Construction of a personal development competitive attitude scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66 (2): 377.
• Salanova, M., Rodriguez-Sanchez, A., Schaufeli, W., Cifre, E. (2014). Flowing together: a longitudinal study of collective efficacy and collective flow among workgroups. The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 148 (4):450.
• Skrabski, Á., Kopp, M., Kawachi, I. (2004). Social capital and collective efficacy in Hungary: cross sectional associations with middle aged female and male mortality rates. Epidemiology and Community Health, 58(4):340.
• Smart, C. ve Vertinsky, I. (1977). Designs for crisis decision units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22 (4):651.
• Sobel, M. (1982). A symptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13: 290-312.
• Stajkovic, A.D., Dongseop, M., ve 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 (3): 814-828.
• Sundstrom, E., Busby, P., Bobrow, W. (1997). Group process and performance: interpersonal behaviors and decision quality in group problem solving by consensus. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1 (3):241-242.
• Tai, Y. (2017). Earnings management in family firms: the role of inside directors. Corparate Management Review, 37 (1): 82
• Tasa,K., Taggar, S., ve Seijts, G. (2007) The development of collective efficacy in teams: a multi-level and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (1): 17-27.
• Urban, J., Weaver, J., Bowers, C., Rhodenizer, L. (1996). Effects of work load and structure on team processes and performance: implications for complex team decision making. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 38 (2):301.
• Weaver, S., Rosen, M., Salas, E., Baum, K., King, H. (2010). Integrating the science of team training: guidelines for continuing education. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 30 (4): 211.
• Wernerfelt, B. (2014). On the role of the RBV in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 ( 1): 22.
• Yardımcı, F., Başbakkal, Z., Beytut, D., Muslu, G., Ersun, A. (2012). Ekip çalışması tutumları ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, (13): 132.
• Yılmazer, A. (2011). Takım esaslı performans ölçme sistemlerinin uygulanmasında etkili olan faktörlerin tespitine yönelik bir inceleme. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 6 (2): 114-124.