Journal of Workplace LearningIndividual learning and group performance: the role of collective efficacyMarie-Hlne Budworth

Article information:To cite this document:Marie-Hlne Budworth, (2011),"Individual learning and group performance: the role of collective efficacy",Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 23 Iss 6 pp. 391 - 401Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13665621111154403

Downloaded on: 08 February 2015, At: 23:08 (PT)References: this document contains references to 37 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2041 times since 2011*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Vidhi Agrawal, Richa Chaudhary, Santosh Rangnekar, Mukesh Kumar Barua, (2012),"Relationshipsbetween occupational self efficacy, human resource development climate, and work engagement",Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 7/8 pp. 370-383 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591211281110Jon Ohlsson, (2013),"Team learning: collective reflection processes in teacher teams", Journal ofWorkplace Learning, Vol. 25 Iss 5 pp. 296-309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JWL-Feb-2012-0011Timothy T. Campbell, Steven J. Armstrong, (2013),"A longitudinal study of individual andorganisational learning", The Learning Organization, Vol. 20 Iss 3 pp. 240-258 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471311328479

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 531990 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Individual learning and groupperformance: the role of

collective efficacyMarie-Hele`ne Budworth

School of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Canada

Abstract

Purpose The aim of the current study is to investigate the effect of training individual groupmembers on the collective efficacy of the group and the groups subsequent performance.

Design/methodology/approach Participants n 275; in a laboratory study were randomlyassigned to groups of five k 55: Individuals were then randomly selected from those groups suchthat none, one, three, or all five members of the group participated in training on effective ways toselect a job candidate.

Findings Groups in which at least a majority of group members were trained had higher collectiveefficacy than groups where fewer members were trained. Training individuals beyond a majority didnot improve collective efficacy further. Collective efficacy mediated the relationship betweenindividual training and group level performance.

Research limitations/implications This research extends the knowledge of the relationshipbetween the individual and the group within social cognitive theory. Training a majority of the groupis needed to see an increase in collective efficacy, a mediator of group performance.

Practical implications Human resource managers should consider the effects of trainingindividuals when they expect their employees to work as teams. It is beneficial to train as many peopleas necessary for the group to be able to benefit from the new information; however, training beyondthe majority of people within the group does not improve confidence or performance.

Originality/value The paper examines the relationship between individual group members andcollective efficacy in a learning context. This extends the knowledge of social cognitive theory bycrossing levels of analysis.

Keywords Training, Collective efficacy, Groups, Teams, Learning, Social cognitive theory,Individual development, Group work

Paper type Research paper

Researchers have made great strides in understanding the variables that affect therelationship between training and trainee performance on the job (Kozlowski andSalas, 2010). However, the implicit hypothesis underlying the training literature is thatindividual-level training outcomes aggregate to create valued outcomes at higherlevels (Kozlowski et al., 2000, pp. 158-159). Training needs are derived forindividual-level KSAs, training programs are delivered to individuals, and trainingeffectiveness is evaluated for individual-level outcomes and transfer. Recently,multi-level models of training effectiveness have been proposed by groups ofresearchers (e.g. Mathieu and Tesluk, 2010). However, most of the empirical work ontransfer of training continues to focus on the paradigm that training the individual has

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-5626.htm

This research was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Grant.

Individuallearning

391

Received 11 January 2011Revised 8 April 2011

Accepted 6 May 2011

Journal of Workplace LearningVol. 23 No. 6, 2011

pp. 391-401q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1366-5626DOI 10.1108/13665621111154403

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

an impact beyond the employees immediate performance. Research on transfer oftraining has not yet adequately addressed the process through which individuallearning improves the performance of the work group to which they belong. Thepresent study addresses this gap. Specifically, this research was designed toinvestigate the effect of individual training on collective efficacy, a mediator ofgroup-level performance following training.

Self-efficacySocial cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) provides a theoretical basis for understandingthe psychological and social motivation for self-regulation, effort, persistence, choice,and performance. Self-efficacy reflects the individuals judgments of their capabilitiesto organize and execute courses of action required to attain desired performances. It isconcerned not with the skills one has, but with judgments of what one can do withwhatever skills one possesses (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). In short, self-efficacy refers tothe extent to which people believe that they can cause, bring about, or make somethinghappen (Yanar et al., 2009). A great deal of research has focused on the relationshipbetween self-efficacy and individual performance (Lent et al., 2002).

Self-efficacy has been identified as an essential variable for trainee transfer(Tannenbaum et al., 1991). In addition to strong main effects on training andperformance outcomes, self-efficacy moderates and mediates the effects of training onjob behavior as rated by peers and supervisors (Ford et al., 1992; Gist, 1989; Saks,1995). The relationship between training, self-efficacy, and individual performance iswell established; so much so that in their review of the training literature in the AnnualReview of Psychology, Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001) argued that researchers shouldexplicitly focus on methods for increasing self-efficacy as part of a training program.

While self-efficacy is a key variable of interest when the desired performanceoutcome is at the individual level, in todays world of work, individuals often work aspart of a team. There is less known about the transfer of skills learned in training whenindividuals need to apply their learning to group settings.

Collective efficacyThere is widespread use of teams and workgroups in organizational settings as a wayto achieve learning and work performance. Increasingly, teams are charged withmaking important decisions as organizations realize that they must rely on manysources of expertise in order to remain competitive (Dose, 2003). As a result, employeedevelopment needs to become increasingly concerned with groups and teams.

This literature has identified collective efficacy, a group-level proxy of self-efficacy,an important predictor of team performance. Collective efficacy refers to a groupsshared belief in a collective capability to organize and execute courses of action(Bandura, 1997). The research on collective efficacy has grown in the last decade.Meta-analytic findings support a relationship between collective-efficacy andperformance (Gully et al., 2002; Stajkovic et al., 2009). Gully et al. (2002) calculatedthe collective efficacy to performance relationship as 0.41 and found support for thefinding that collective efficacy is paramount in situations where the task requires highgroup interdependence. In a second study, task interdependence was found tomoderate the collective efficacy to group performance relationship such that where

JWL23,6

392

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

tasks require high (as compared to low) member coordination, collective efficacy isincreasingly important (Stajkovic et al., 2009).

There are a growing number of studies that have investigated the relationshipbetween training and collective efficacy. For example, Brown (2003) found thatcollective efficacy mediates the training-performance relationship. Gibson (2001) foundthat training is positively related to collective efficacy and team effectiveness. Whilethe efficacy to performance relationship is acknowledged as being important, alimitation of the current literature is that we know little about how individual trainingcan enhance collective efficacy in work teams. Kozlowski and Salas (1997) suggestedthat we need to train an entire group if we are concerned with group level outcomes.Most of the extant literature has focused on the elements of team training that canincrease team success (Salas et al., 2007). In other words, the extant research hasfocused on group level interventions when concerned with group level outcomes. Littleresearch has attempted to cross levels of analysis to understand the influence ofindividual level factors on group level outcomes such as collective efficacy. A notableexception within the collective efficacy literature is the work completed by Tasa et al.(2007) on individual factors that contribute to collective efficacy in work groups. Theyfound that the development of collective efficacy occurs following the interactionsbetween individuals within a work group. The present study aims to deeper ourunderstanding of this relationship by investigating the effect of individual training onthe team level outcomes of collective efficacy and team performance.

Research in social psychology has been interested in the effect of the individual onthe group for decades and therefore provides a basis for making predictions aboutcollective efficacy as a result of individual training. Specifically, the literature onminority influence is reviewed here.

Social impact theorySocial influence studies in social psychology examine changes in judgments, opinions,and attitudes of an individual as a result of being exposed to the judgments, opinions,and attitudes of others (Moscovici et al., 1969). In general, the theory states thatmajority opinions will factors more heavily into group decisions. Minority factions canhave an influence on group outcomes, however, there are a number of process lossesthat can interfere with teams ability to recognize minority opinion as being importantand valuable (Park and DeShon, 2010).

Latanes (1981) social impact theory predicts that majority influence increases as thesize of the majority increases. Each additional group member, however, adds less to themajoritys cumulative impact as group size increases. Hence, the amount of socialinfluence exerted by a majority or minority faction is a function of the number of itsmembers. The marginally decreasing impact is modeled by the equation I sN t;where s is a constant, N represents the number of individuals in the faction, and t is anexponent with a value of less than one. This equation shows that as the number ofsources increase, the amount of influence exerted by each additional individualdecreases in a nonlinear fashion.

Social impact theory states that a trainee has more influence over others in thegroup as the number of people who are trained increases, with each additional traineehaving less impact on the group (Latane, 1981). As more group members receive the

Individuallearning

393

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

training, there will be a greater effect on a group, but the added value of trainingindividuals will decrease as more members are trained.

Collective efficacy represents a groups belief about their abilities. According tosocial impact theory, beliefs can be altered when a majority of a group has the ability toinfluence those beliefs. Therefore, it is likely that training a majority of the groupsmembers ensures an increase in collective efficacy.

H1. As the number of people in a group who are trained increases, collectiveefficacy of the group also increases until the majority has been trained atwhich point there is no statistically significant benefit to training additionalgroup members.

It is proposed here that the influence an individual has on a team as a result of trainingis based in their ability to alter the efficacy beliefs of the team. As the individualexpresses views that are supported by their training experience and is able to provide arationale and evidence for their views, the team feels more confident about the decision.Research in social psychology indicates that where a knowledgeable group membercan demonstrate a logical and rational explanation for their approach, groupperformance is enhanced (Hastie, 1986; Laughlin, 1980; McGrath, 1984). Therefore, it isexpected that trained group members provide information that increases theirunderstanding of the problem, increases their efficacy beliefs and as a result has apositive influence on team performance. The following is hypothesized:

H2. Collective efficacy mediates the relationship between the number of peopletrained and a groups performance.

MethodSampleThe participants in this study were 275 undergraduate business students. Themajority of them were between the ages of 18 and 24 (85 percent), of which 54 percentwere female. They were self-identified as Caucasian (29 percent), East Asian (26percent), and Asian (26 percent). The remaining 18 percent did not report theirethnicity. The students participated in this study as part of an experiential coursewhere they were enrolled.

The participants had no previous experience with the specific task used in thisstudy. They may or may not have had prior experience with selection decisions. Thiswas not assessed as part of the study, however, work experience was entered as acontrol variable in the analysis of the data.

ProcedureParticipants were randomly assigned to groups of five k 55: The participants weretold that the study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a training program onways to select high performers. Groups were randomly assigned to conditions wherezero k 13; one k 11; three k 17; or five k 14 people were trained.Individuals were then randomly assigned to each group for training. All participantswho received training participated in a one-hour session on how to evaluate applicationpackages (i.e. interviews, measures of general intelligence, conscientiousness). Theywere also taught how to interpret selection tools in order to make informed and legallydefensible selection decisions based on reliable and valid data. For example, they were

JWL23,6

394

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

taught not to rely too heavily on reference letters, and to ensure that they take intoaccount the results from structured interview formats. They were also giveninformation on the validity of intelligence and personality tests. Trainees thencompleted a learning test that assessed their understanding of the skills taught in thetraining program.

Participants in the control condition listened to a lecture on recruitment practicesincluding realistic job previews, channels for recruitment, and improving recruitmentpractices through yield ratios. This was used as a filler task designed to control forthe possibility that exposure to any type of training (placebo) could lead to improvedperformance. None of the participants were informed that the content in the twoconditions differed. The participants came together as a group subsequent to beingexposed to one of these two procedures.

TaskAll the groups were given the same selection task. This task was used since itrepresents a real world requirement that is often performed by a group inorganizational settings. In performing this task, group members could compile theirresources in any way they wished. However, in order to make a reliable, valid, andlegally defensible hiring decision, the trained individual(s) needed to influence thegroups decision. In this way, groups that used the knowledge held by the trainedindividual(s) were able to perform better than those groups that did not use thatinformation.

The participants were told that they were members of a senior management team atRamius Corporation, a fictitious technology firm. As a group, they were givenbackground information on a job applicant. The background information includedgeneral intelligence test scores, personality measures, bio-data, resumes, and areference letter. In addition, they viewed an eight-minute videotaped interview of thecandidate. The participants were asked to rate their beliefs about whether thecandidate was suitable for the position. The information was developed by theexperimenters so that an appropriate assessment would be a score between 12 and 13as there was positive and negative information spread across the different sources ofinformation on the candidate. The group was then asked to reach consensus on adecision. Finally, each group member was asked to complete a measure of collectiveefficacy.

MeasuresCollective efficacy. Bandura (2000) described three methods for measuring collectiveefficacy. The first method aggregates the individual members appraisals of their ownpersonal capabilities to perform specific activities as part of the group. The secondmethod aggregates members appraisals of their groups effectiveness as a whole. Thethird method measures perceived collective efficacy by having group members arriveat a judgment together.

Bandura (2000, p. 75) criticized the third method for being subject to socialpersuasion by those who hold power, and hence pressures for conformity. He alsoargued that:

The relative predictiveness of the [other] two indices of collective efficacy will depend largelyon the degree of interdependent effort needed to achieve desired results. For example, the

Individuallearning

395

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

accomplishments of a gymnastics team is the sum of successes achieved independently byeach gymnast, whereas the accomplishments of a soccer team is the product of playersworking intricately together . . . Perceived group efficacy based on the aggregated holisticindex is most suitable for performance outcomes achievable only by adept teamwork. Inactivities involving low system interdependence, members may inspire, motivate, andsupport each other, but the group outcome is the sum of the attainments producedindividually rather than by the members working together. Perceived group efficacy basedon aggregated personal efficacies is well suited for the latter types of endeavors.

The selection task used in this study allowed group members to combine theirknowledge and opinions in any manner they choose. The group submitted one form atthe end of deliberation that represented their collective decision. Consistent withBandura, collective efficacy for this task was measured by asking group members toindependently assess the groups capability, and then their independent evaluationswere aggregated. Specifically, individual participants were asked if they believed thatthe team could achieve four specific team performance outcomes (yes or no) and theirconfidence in the teams ability to achieve these outcomes (on a ten-point scale). Asample items is How confident are you that your group correctly evaluated thecandidate? Individual composite z-scores were calculated consistent with proceduresrecommended by Lee and Bobko (1994). These individual composite scores were thenaggregated to the team level.

Candidate evaluation. Groups were asked to evaluate the candidate on four itemsusing a Likert-type scale where 1 is not at all certain and 5 is very certain. Theitems included: To what extent does your group believe the candidate will performwell on the job? To what extent does your group believe that the candidate isqualified for the job?

Each group was given one form to complete. The groups members were asked toreach a decision as a group. The group members were required to argue their ownparticular perspective, and then reach a decision through consensus using the singlerating form given to them. The internal consistency of the four-item dependent variablewas high a 0:94:

The candidate profile was compiled such that groups who evaluated the candidateaccording to the data from reliable and valid sources (e.g. general intelligence test,measures of conscientiousness) should have performed better than groups who gavemore weight to less valid sources of information (e.g. reference letters, unstructuredinterview). Thus taking into account the information from the training program wasnecessary for a group to perform well on this task.

ResultsCollective efficacyThe level of agreement among each groups members was assessed before averagingthe individual group members scores to create the team level collective efficacyvariable. Agreement was assessed using an intraclass correlation (ICC). The averageICCs were above 0.80. Cronbachs alphas for the aggregated efficacy scores rangedfrom 0.82 to 0.93. The mean collective efficacies for each condition are shown in Table I.

ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference in the collective efficacy ofgroups where no one was trained and three people were trained F 4:3; p , 0.05);similarly, the difference between groups where one person was trained versus those

JWL23,6

396

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

where three people were trained was significant at the p , 0.10 level F 2:5; p , 0.10,df 53: There was no significant difference between the groups in which no one wastrained versus those in which one person was trained F 2:08; p 0:12; nor werethere any differences between groups in which three people were trained and five peoplewere trained F 0:14; p 0:71: These results provide partial support for H1.

The second hypothesis was that collective efficacy mediates the relationshipbetween training and group performance. Mediation analysis was conducted followingthe procedures of Baron and Kenny (1986). The analysis was conducted using theaverage post-training collective efficacy and each groups evaluation of the candidate.Specifically, a three-step analysis was conducted by:

(1) regressing the mediator (collective efficacy) on the independent variable(number of people trained);

(2) regressing the dependent variable (candidate evaluation) on the independentvariable (number of people trained); and

(3) regressing the dependent variable on both the independent and mediatorvariables.

According to Baron and Kenny, for perfect mediation to occur:. the independent variable must affect the mediator in the first equation;. the independent variable must be shown to affect the dependent variable in the

second equation;. the mediator must affect the dependent variable in the third equation; and. the independent variable must no longer be significant in the third equation.

Preacher and Hayes (2004) warned that relying on the Baron and Kenny (1986) methodcan often lead to a Type I errors in large samples, and suffers from low statisticalpower in most situations. The Sobel test reduces the likelihood of an error, providesgreater statistical power (MacKinnon et al., 2002) and hence permits a powerful test ofmediation (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). Therefore, the Aroian version of the Sobel testwas conducted (Preacher and Leonardelli, 2001). Collective efficacy was found tomediate the relationship between number of people trained and the groups evaluationof the candidate (z 2.03, p , 0.05). Hence, H2 was supported (see Table II).

DiscussionThe transfer of training literature has unarguably advanced the knowledge of bothscientists and practitioners over the last few decades, yet the focus of this research hasremained at the level of the individual (Aguinis and Kraiger, 2009). Consequently,Kozlowski et al. (2000) argued that a key limitation of transfer of training research is that

n Mean SD

0 people trained 13 18.47 7.391 person trained 11 20.03 5.443 people trained 17 22.73 3.635 people trained 14 22.23 3.83

Table I.Descriptive statistics of

collective efficacy foreach group

Individuallearning

397

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

it cannot answer the question of whether training one individual influences a groupsperformance. The present study is an initial step toward answering this question.

The main hypothesis enjoyed partial support. The findings indicate that collectiveefficacy increases as we move from training no one to training the majority of thegroup. In addition, collective efficacy was found to mediate the relationship betweenthe number of trained individuals in a group and a groups performance. This extendsour understanding of social cognitive theory in that the study examined the effect oftraining one or more individual(s) on the collective efficacy of the group. This researchcrossed levels of analysis. Researchers know that an individuals level of self-efficacymoderates subsequent transfer of training for that individual (Saks, 1995), and thatcollective efficacy moderates a groups level of transfer of training (Brown, 2003). Now,it is known that individual training can increase collective efficacy when a majority ofthe group is trained.

Training all five group members did not significantly increase collective efficacy.Kozlowski and Salas (1997) argued the necessity of training a team as a unit in order toenhance group performance. This research indicates that it is not necessary to train anentire group to see benefits from training. Subgroups of individuals can influence teamlevel beliefs about ability. This has implications for team performance beyond ourunderstanding of transfer of training.

Collective efficacy has a moderate relationship with performance (Gully et al., 2002;Stajkovic et al., 2009). Team performance is often problematic and can be limited by awide range of factors (Hackman, 1998). If collective efficacy can be predictably andreliably enhanced, team performance can be improved. This study provides someguidance on how to positively influence outcomes at the team level, train at least amajority of team members.

This study has implications for what Kozlowski et al. (2000) called vertical transferof training. Vertical transfer has been defined as transfer of training across levels ofanalysis. The present study found that vertical transfer occurs when a groupscollective efficacy can be enhanced for the defined task. In other words, the groupperformed better as a result of individual training in groups where collective efficacyincreased.

Variable b R 2 F

Equation 1DV Collective efficacyIV number of people trained 0.286 0.082 4.705 *Equation 2DV Group evaluation of candidateIV number of people trained 0.371 0.137 8.29 * *Equation 3DV Group evaluation of candidateIV number of people trained 0.192 0.521 27.77 * *IV collective efficacy 0.645Notes: n 55; *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01

Table II.Mediation analysis:training, collectiveefficacy, and groupperformance outcome

JWL23,6

398

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

A limitation of this study is that it did not explicitly examine the processes thatsupported an enhancement of collective efficacy across teams. Future research shouldinvestigate the content of the groups discussion in order to determine the ways inwhich group members were able to alter the efficacy beliefs of their colleagues.

Individual difference factors might have an impact on the relationship between thevariables described in this study. For example, experience with the task, expertise, orprevious knowledge might have an effect on individual self-efficacy, level ofcontribution within group discussion, and ultimately collective efficacy of the group towhich that individual belongs. This study used a relatively homogeneous sample,future research might want to investigate the effects of these types of differences on thecollective efficacy to performance relationship.

There are also some limitations based on the methods used in this study.Generalizability was sacrificed for control over potential extraneous variables. Giventhat the task was an artificial simulation, the results must be cautiously interpreted.Their application to other contexts still needs to be examined.

In future, it would be interesting to extend these findings by investigating therelationship between efficacy and other group level variables that are known to affectgroup performance. For example, the research on group diversity has led toinconsistent findings; diverse groups sometimes perform quite well and other times failto deliver (Van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007). Collective efficacy might provide auseful construct for predicting performance among diversity. Similarly, recent work oncollective intelligence has offered an interesting advance in our understanding of groupperformance. The general ability of the group to perform a wide range of tasks is not asimple combination of the intelligences of the various group members (Woolley et al.,2010). Efficacy represents a motivation whereas intelligence describes an ability.Collectively efficacy might interact with intelligence in a meaningful way.

The practical significance of these findings is that when group level outcomes aredesired, human resource specialists and managers need to consider how the acquiredknowledge will be distributed among group members. When individuals are workingas part of a team, we need to consider training the majority of group members. Afterthat, there is limited value in training additional group members. Based on the currentresearch findings, if training dollars are minimal, training a majority of the groupmembers is a good strategy.

References

Aguinis, H. and Kraiger, K. (2009), Benefits of training and development for individuals andteams, organizations, and society, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 451-74.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.

Bandura, A. (2000), Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy, Current Directionsin Psychological Science, Vol. 9, pp. 75-8.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.

Brown, T.C. (2003), The effect of verbal self-guidance training on collective efficacy and teamperformance, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 935-64.

Individuallearning

399

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Dose, J.J. (2003), Information exchange in personnel selection decisions, Applied Psychology:An International Review, Vol. 52, pp. 237-52.

Ford, J.K., Quinones, M.A., Sego, D.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1992), Factors affecting the opportunity toperform trained skills on the job, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 511-72.

Gibson, C.B. (2001), Me and us: differential relationships among goal-setting training, efficacyand effectiveness at the individual and team level, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 22, pp. 789-808.

Gist, M.E. (1989), The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation amongmanagers, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 787-805.

Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A. and Beubien, J.M. (2002), A meta-analysis of teamefficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators ofobserved relationships, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 819-32.

Hackman, J.R. (1998), Why teams dont work, in Tindale, R.S., Heath, L., Edwards, J.,Posavac, F.B., Myers, J., Suarez-Balcazar, Y. and Henderson-King, E. (Eds), Theory andResearch on Small Groups, Pelnum Press, New York, NY, pp. 245-67.

Hastie, R. (1986), Experimental evidence on group accuracy, in Grofman, B. and Owen, G. (Eds),Decision Research, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Salas, E. (1997), A multilevel organizational systems approach for theimplementation and transfer of training, in Ford, J.K., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Kraiger, K.,Salas, E. and Teachout, M. (Eds), Improving Training Effectiveness inWork Organizations,Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 247-87.

Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Salas, E. (2010), Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations,Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., Brown, K., Weissbein, D., Cannon-Bowers, J. and Salas, E. (2000), A multilevelapproach to training effectiveness: enhancing horizontal and vertical transfer, in Klein, K.and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organization,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 157-210.

Latane, B. (1981), The psychology of social impact, American Psychologist, Vol. 36, pp. 343-56.

Laughlin, P.R. (1980), Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups onverbal intellective tasks, in Fishbein, M. (Ed.), Progress in Social Psychology, Erlbaum,Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 126-55.

Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1994), Self-efficacy beliefs: comparison of five measures, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 364-9.

Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D. and Hackett, G. (2002), Social cognitive career theory, in Brown, D.(Ed.), Career Choice and Development, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 255-311.

McGrath, J.E. (1984), Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. (2002), A comparisonof methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects, PsychologicalMethods, Vol. 7, pp. 83-104.

Mathieu, J.E. and Tesluk, P.E. (2010), A multilevel perspective on training and developmenteffectiveness, in Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Salas, E. (Eds), Learning, Training, andDevelopment in Organizations, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.

Moscovici, S., Lage, E. and Naffrechoux, M. (1969), Influence of a consistent minority on theresponses of a majority in a color perception task, Sociometry, Vol. 32, pp. 365-80.

Park, G. and DeShon, R.P. (2010), A multilevel model of minority opinion expression and teamdecision-making effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, August 16.

JWL23,6

400

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effectsin simple mediation models, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,Vol. 36, pp. 717-31.

Preacher, K.J. and Leonardelli, G.J. (2001), Calculation for the Sobel test: an interactivecalculation tool for mediation tests, available at: www.unc.edu/,preacher/sobel/sobel.htm (accessed 12 November, 2010).

Saks, A.M. (1995), Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects ofself-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 211-25.

Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2001), The science of training: a decade of progress, AnnualReview of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 471-99.

Salas, E., Nichols, D.R. and Driskell, J.E. (2007), Testing three team training strategies in intactteams: a meta-analysis, Small Group Research, Vol. 38, pp. 471-88.

Stajkovic, A.D., Lee, D. and Nyberg, A.J. (2009), Collective efficacy, group potency, and groupperformance: meta-analyses of their relationships and test of a mediation model, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 94, pp. 814-28.

Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1991), Meeting traineesexpectations: the influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment,self-efficacy, and motivation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 759-69.

Tasa, K., Taggar, S. and Seijts, G.H. (2007), The development of collective efficacy in teams:a multilevel and longitudinal perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 17-27.

Van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C. (2007), Work group diversity, Annual Review ofPsychology, Vol. 58, pp. 515-41.

Woolley, A.W., Chabris, C.F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N. and Malone, T.W. (2010), Evidence for acollective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups, Science, Vol. 330,pp. 686-8.

Yanar, B., Budworth, M. and Latham, G.P. (2009), The effect of training in verbal self guidanceon self-efficacy and reemployment of Turkish women, Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, Vol. 58, pp. 586-601.

Further reading

Cappelli, P. and Sherer, P.D. (1991), The missing role of context in OB: the need for a meso-levelapproach, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 55-110.

About the authorMarie-Hele`ne Budworth earned her PhD in organizational behavior and human resourcemanagement at the Rotman School of Business, University of Toronto, and is currently anAssociate Professor at the School of Human Resource Management, York University. Herresearch interests are in the area of training and development. Her most recent research projectshave explored the application of clinical psychology techniques to the transfer of trainingproblem. She has also investigated the nature of information sharing within groups. Her workhas been presented at scholarly conferences in the UK, Portugal, Ireland, the USA and Canada,and published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior, and International Journal of Selection andAssessment. Marie-Hele`ne Budworth can be contacted at: budworth@yorku.ca

Individuallearning

401

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Colm Fearon, Heather McLaughlin, Lynn Morris. 2013. Conceptualising work engagement. EuropeanJournal of Training and Development 37:3, 244-256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Kijpokin KasemsapConstructing a Unified Framework and a Causal Model of Occupational Satisfaction,Trainee Reactions, Perception of Learning, and Perceived Training Transfer 28-52. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TI P

END

IDIK

AN

SU

LTA

N ID

RIS

At 2

3:08

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)