Promoting group potency in project teams: The importance of group identification

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 32, 1147–1162 (2011)

Published online 2 February 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.741

*Correspondence to:E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2011

Promoting group potency in project teams: Theimportance of group identification

CYNTHIA LEE1,2*, JIING-LIH FARH3 AND ZHI-JUN CHEN3

1College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.2Department of Management & Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong3Department of Management, School of Business Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay,Kowloon, Hong Kong

Summary We examined the antecedents and consequences of group potency in 71 multinational project teams in theGreater China region. We extended the theoretical basis of group potency by employing group identificationtheory. Results showed that group identification was one of the key factors in developing group potency.Further, fostering the acceptance of group goals that are interdependent was important for increasing groupidentification. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research. Copyright# 2011 John Wiley& Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: group potency; group identification; group performance

Introduction

Research on groups and work teams has become very popular across the world over the past decade. Existing

explanations of group performance, however, are incomplete and tend to neglect mechanisms inherent in the groups

themselves as important determinants of group effectiveness (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; Gully, 2000;

Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). As reviewed and summarized by Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, and Gilson (2008), the

research on teams has made substantial progress especially in the areas of group potency, among others. They note

that, as shown by Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, and Beaubien’s meta-analysis (2002), although the positive relationships

between group potency with outcomes are fairly consistent and moderate, particularly for highly interdependent

teams, future work should also consider the antecedents of group potency or the group’s collective belief

in its capability to perform well in general or to perform multiple tasks in complex environments (Gibson, Randel,

& Earley, 2000; Gully et al., 2002, Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993; Shea & Guzzo, 1987). Group potency is

a social-psychological factor that is motivational in nature and an important antecedent of group outcomes (Gully

et al., 2002; Hirschfeld, Jordan, Field, Giles, & Armenakis, 2005; Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002; Stajkovic,

Lee, & Nyberg, 2009).

Although intrateam coordination and greater cooperation among team members as well as transformational

and empowerment leadership have been found to be beneficial when teams perform creative and complex work

(Stewart, 2006), the processes by which such effects relate to team performance should be examined. First, the group

potency literature has not addressed how leaders promote group’s shared perceptions or group identification and

collective beliefs about their capability. As suggested by Kozlowski and Bell (2003) that to study team phenomenon,

research should explicitly target at the team level as in our study. The processes we examine include team members’

Cynthia Lee, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, U.S.A.u

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Received 17 March 2009

Revised 19 November 2010, Accepted 23 November 2010

1148 C. LEE ET AL.

identification with their own groups and members’ group potency. We argue that in order to develop identification

with one’s own group, a leader can foster acceptance of group goals and create goal interdependence. Second,

although research has examined the mediating role of group potency on leadership style and group performance

(Guzzo et al., 1993; Lester et al., 2002; Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, & Jung, 2002), we seek to explain

why group identification mediates the relationship between leader’s role in fostering group goals and goal

interdependence on group potency. Third, although Gully et al. (2002) has demonstrated the positive association

between group potency and performance, we know less about how best to promote group potency. We propose

that leaders can increase the group’s identification and that group identification enhances group potency. We thus

suggest that group identification is central to developing group potency. Our use of group identification contributes to

the theoretical grounding for studying group potency and aims to address the above weaknesses in group potency

research.

As suggested by Hirschfeld et al. (2005), the role of group potency in team effectiveness is supported by the tenets

of social-cognitive theory such that shared forethought generates action, collective experiences and results (Bandura,

1997) as in Lester et al.’s (2002) study. The primary objective of our study is to extend the theoretical basis of group

potency and examine its antecedents. We suggest that, first, group potency beliefs can be strengthened by having

group/team identification. Team identification is the process by which individual teammembers perceive themselves

in terms of the values, goals, attitudes, and behavior they share with other team members (Janssen & Huang, 2008).

Since collective beliefs emerge from members confronting collective concerns or task-related issues, collective

identification develops from the extent to which these common concerns of team goals and norms are acknowledged

and enacted. When individuals identify with a group, they base their self-esteem partly on their group membership

and partly on the group’s successes or failures (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Secondly, since team identification

encourages individual members to contribute to the collective by acting in team-typical ways (Janssen & Huang,

2008), the sense of team identification or oneness motivates individual team members to believe in each other’s

capability to perform multiple tasks. Specifically, our study extends previous theorizing by suggesting that

team identification increases group potency since identification with the group or team raises the group’s belief

that they have the capability to perform well in various contexts. We further suggest that team identification mediates

the relationship between leader’s role in fostering acceptance of group goals and goal interdependence on group

potency and team performance. This is because the leader’s role in mobilizing people to achieve collective goals

tends to create greater identification with work unit members (Hogg, 2001).

In sum, we examine our hypothesized model shown in Figure 1 where group identification mediates the

effects of leader’s fostering acceptance of group goals and goal interdependence on group potency. Further group

potency also mediates the effects of group identification on group performance. While many researchers provide

different definitions for groups and teams, as noted by Gully (2000), many of these distinctions are arbitrary and

much overlap exists among the various definitions. We use the term work teams and groups interchangeably in our

paper. We seek to identify the available social information cues and forms of communication that facilitate team

member identification.

Figure 1. Hypothesized model

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 32, 1147–1162 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/job

PROMOTING GROUP POTENCY 1149

Group Identification

In a group setting, a source of group confidence or potency may come from members’ identification with their

own groups. Group identification is the ‘‘emotional significance that members of a given group attach to their

membership in that group’’ (Van de Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). Ashforth and Mael (1989) stated that to identify

with a group, an individual needs to perceive him- or herself as psychologically intertwined with the fate of the

group and to see him- or herself as personally experiencing the successes and failures of the group. In other

words, the interpersonal relationships of the team members should be satisfying (Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio,

Murrell, & Pomare, 1990). Further, the individual should have the desire to appease, emulate, or vicariously gain

the qualities of the others and, thus, define the self in terms of the people in the ‘‘group.’’ Work context that

provides structure, norms, and guidance conducive to congruent expectancies regarding appropriate behaviors

foster organization-related identities (Thatcher & Zhu, 2006). Similarly, developing group norms is one way

to reinforce group identification since social identification theory suggests that shared goals, interpersonal

interaction, or common history may affect the extent to which individuals identify with a group (Ashforth

& Mael, 1989).

In order to foster group identification, we suggest that group leaders should develop group goals

and collaborations so that members can integrate their personal and social identities. Goal interdependence can

also be used to signal that the group members’ fates are intertwined, increasing the likelihood that members

understand each other, develop norms, and define themselves with people in the group. Strong group

identification can thus increase members’ confidence in each other’s ability to perform. Further, group

identification can increase the likelihood that members will perform citizenship behaviors that help other team

members but are not required by the task (Janssen & Huang, 2008). Figure 1 presents our integrative model that is

further discussed below.

Antecedents of Group Identification

How do we enhance group identification or create the sense that membership in a team is an emotionally significant

aspect of one’s identity? Social identity theory suggests that group members will exhibit favorable bias toward

similar others or toward their in-group members, and they will view themselves as being in conflict with out-group or

dissimilar others (Turner & Haslam, 2001). Ways to enhance the team’s emotional identification are by fostering

acceptance of group goals, creating goal interdependencies and communicating with their team members.

Others suggest that these antecedents of group identification represent the abilities of charismatic leaders who can

be effective in articulating their vision, energizing and inspiring others, and generating commitment from their

followers to achieve their stated vision and goals (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1998; Lester et al., 2002). Additionally,

such leaders can often boost the confidence of their followers and develop in them a belief that they can succeed.

These leaders are often successful in connecting with followers’ commitment to the group’s mission or goals.

Consequently, the followers express their self-concepts by acting for the sake of the group (Shamir, House, &Arthur,

1993). Thus, along with team member communication, the followers’ perception that they have a common goal

with their group and that their goals are intertwined or interdependent can increase identification with the group.

As a result, the increased group identification enhances the followers’ willingness to contribute to the group’s goals

and objectives.

We suggest that the perception of a leader in fostering acceptance of group goals and creating goal

interdependence is related to group identification. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Ahearne (1997) note that when

leaders foster the acceptance of group goals and succeed in getting group members to work cooperatively, a


DOI: 10.1002/job

1150 C. LEE ET AL.

more positive identification will develop between the group members. Thus, it is possible that teams with leaders

who can foster the acceptance of group goals can help create a sense of togetherness or group identification.

Therefore, we predict that

H1: Fostering collaboration and acceptance of group goals have a direct positive effect on group identification.

Additionally, we suggest that although fostering acceptance of group goals is important in generating a sense of group

identity, perceived goal interdependence, or the fact that the goal attainment of one team member is influenced by the

goal attainment of another, is needed for team members to work cooperatively to attain the group’s shared goals.

Perceived goal interdependence is defined as the extent towhich an individual teammember believes that his or her goals

can be achieved only when the goals of other team members are also met (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). Weldon and

Weingart (1993) argued that goal interdependence improves performance of an interdependent task because goal

interdependence increases team member collaboration. According to Van der Vegt and Janssen (2003), team members

working on tasks with high levels of task and goal interdependences have high-quality social processing, extensive

mutual learning, use the knowledge and skills of interdependent members to solve problems, and be receptive to

information and suggestions from interdependent others. We argue that the high-quality social processes from goal

interdependencewill likely increase group identification as group interactions enhance the team’s emotional attachment.

H2: Goal interdependence has a direct positive effect on group identification.

Group Identification and Group Potency

Collective identification has its roots in social identity theory. According to social identity theory, a person’s self-

concept is comprised of his/her own abilities, interests and social identity where people characterize themselves

into various social groups. Such characterization enables people to locate themselves and others within particular

social groups. One consequence of social identification relates to team formation including positive evaluation of

the group (Turner, 1982, 1984). The perception of belonging to a group allows people to vicariously partake

in accomplishments beyond their powers (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Social identity theory suggests that members

work to benefit their in-group status because their positive self-regard is linked to the group’s success. It has

been suggested that when people feel an emotional attachment with their group, share the same fate, and see their

self-images reflected in group membership, they have more positive attitudes about the group (Ashforth & Mael,

1989; Chattopadhyay, 1999; Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992).

As argued by Ashforth and Mael (1989), social identification has motivational and behavioral consequences.

Specifically, a high level of identification leads the individual to engage in behaviors that are congruent with the group’s

identity and that express that identity. As team members interact and develop special relationships, the team forms a

persona of its own. When team members identify strongly with the group and the group goals, they tend to cooperate

with each other better. Research by Tjosvold and associates (1998, 2000, 2004) has shown that cooperative teams

perform better than uncooperative teams. Thus, members of cooperative teams should have greater confidence in their

team’s ability to accomplish the group goals well (group potency). Subsequently, teammembers will work hard to build

their team’s sense of potency since they are collaborating on a common and intertwined goal. Collaborating and

fostering the acceptance of common group goals can reinforce the team’s shared identity. Given the motivational and

behavioral effects of social identification, members’ identification with the group is likely to be taken into account by

group members when they evaluate the group’s potency. Therefore, a high level of identification among group

members is likely to increase its sense of potency (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper,

2000). We further argue that having common and interdependent goals may not necessarily lead to high group

potency unless the group members identify with each other. We, therefore, predict that


DOI: 10.1002/job

H3: Group identification has a direct positive effect on group potency.

H4: Group identification mediates the relationships among goal interdependence, fostering acceptance of group

goals on group potency.


Consequences of Group Potency

Prior research suggests that a general belief in group potency relates positively to team effectiveness (Guzzo et al.,

1993). Just like group efficacy, which signals what a group thinks it can do on a specific task (Gibson, 1999), group

potency should signal what a group thinks it can do across tasks and situations. Guzzo et al. (1991) reported that

potency was positively related to measures of service to others inside an organization and of service to customers.

Shea and Guzzo (1987) found that potency was positively correlated with team customer service effectiveness.

Similarly, de Jong, Ruyter, andWetzels (2005), in a study of 60 self-managed teams in retail banking, found a significant

positive association between group potency and customer-perceived service quality. Campion, Medsker, and Higgs

(1993) found positive correlations between potency and group productivity, satisfaction, and managerial judgments of

effectiveness in a large financial service company. Lee, Tinsley, and Bobko (2002) found that group potency was related

to task performance even when past performance was controlled. As revealed by Gully et al. (2002), the higher the

potency, the more positive the collective outcomes. In replicating past results in the Chinese context, we predict that

H5: Group potency has a direct positive effect on group performance.

Group Identification and Group Performance

Identification with work unit has been related to individual job performance (Walumbwa, Avolio, and Zhu, 2008)

because identification is associated with individual’s motivation to achieve collective goals. Walumbwa et al. (2008)

also suggest that strong identification with work unit tends to promote positive responses toward work units or

organizations which, in turn, promote higher job performance. At the individual level, perceived identification helps

people maintain a positive view of themselves and enhances people’s self-esteem (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell,

2002) leading to higher job performance. We expect the same mechanism to work at the group level where group

identification leads to positive group evaluations leading to higher group performance. Therefore, we predict that

H6: Group potency mediates the relationship between group identification and group performance.

Methods

Research context and sample

As part of a study on team creativity (Farh, Lee, & Farh, 2010), we collected data from 71 project teams of an IT firm

with over 10 000 employees in the Greater China region. One-quarter to one-third of these employees were engaged


DOI: 10.1002/job

1152 C. LEE ET AL.

in IT service projects for corporate clients in project teams. A temporary project-based team is comprised of team

members from different hierarchical levels in the company, different functional units, different locations, and

different regions. In an attempt to satisfy customer demands, team members may have to adjust and adapt to

unexpected situations and task contexts.We believe our context is appropriate for studying group potency over group

or collective efficacy since the project teams operate in a complex task environment and perform multiple tasks.

Two types of surveys were collected. The first was the member survey. Member surveys asked team members

about fostering acceptance of group goals, goal interdependence, group identification, and group potency. The

second was the project manager survey. In this survey, the project manager reported on project context (including

project tenure, percentage of project completion, team size etc.) and project team performance. They then asked

the team members to complete the members’ survey. Team members and project managers’ surveys were completed

within one to two weeks time frame.

A project manager was assigned by the focal company at the project start time as the single point of contact and

was responsible for the project outcomes from the beginning to the end of the project. His/her mission was to form

a project team to design and deliver the expected services to the customer during the project cycle. The expected

project scope, project budget and delivery schedule were normally set in the initial stage of the project. The project

manager was responsible to find the best people to fulfill the customer’s expectations and contractual requirements

within the constraints of limited funds and time. Most service projects in this IT firm lasted for six months to two

years. We sampled projects that were at least 10–15 per cent into the project stage so that the team members had

had chances to interact with each other. A typical project team in the focal firm was comprised of a project manager

and 5–20 team members. The project manager led team members to complete the project. Some projects could be

very large with several dozen team members. These large teams were often broken down into sub teams of 5–20

members. In such cases, sub-teams were the unit in this study. Performance evaluations were based on the sub-teams’

performance. The sub-team leader was usually the project manager.

Our sample consisted of 422 team members and 71 project managers from 71 project groups. The response rates

from the 71 project managers and the 422 team member samples were 71 and 75 per cent, respectively. Among

the 422 subordinate respondents, 74.9 per cent were male; their mean age was 32 years with a mean organizational

tenure of 4.28 years. The average team size was six members. Of the team members, 95.1 per cent had university

and above degrees. Not all project team members came from the focal firm. The percentage of the team members

who were external contractors and customers was 40 per cent. Among the 71 project managers, 83.1 per cent were

male, their mean age was 36.2 years, and their mean organizational tenure was 5 years. These project managers had

either university (66.2 per cent) or master’s level or above degrees (31 per cent).

Data from the project managers were collected through the Internet survey aided by telephone interviews

concurrently. Telephone interviews were used to ensure cooperation and that the managers understood all the

questions on the survey. The members completed their questionnaires using the Internet. Since members came from

three areas in China, three versions of the questionnaires were used. Chinese with simplified characters was used

in the mainland. Chinese with complex characters was used in Taiwan. An English version was used in Hong Kong.

To ensure measure equivalence in the Chinese and English versions, the scales used in this study were translated

into Chinese and then translated independently back into English (Brislin, 1980). Expert judges in Chinese

also examined the questionnaire to ensure that the items were interpretable in Chinese. Unless noted, all multiple-

item measures used a seven-point response scale ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (7).

Measures

Fostering the acceptance of group goals was measured with a four-item scale used by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and

their colleagues (cf. Podsakoff et al., 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,


DOI: 10.1002/job


Moorman,&Fetter, 1990). This scalemeasured the extent towhich leaders encouraged employees towork together toward

a common goal. The specific items usedwere ‘‘My projectmanager gets the team towork together for the samegoal,’’ ‘‘My

project manager fosters collaboration among team members,’’ ‘‘My project manager develops a team attitude and spirit

among his/her team members,’’ and ‘‘My project manager encourages members to be team players.’’

Goal interdependence was measured using three items adapted from previous research assessing individual

team member’s perceptions of goal interdependence (Tjosvold, 1984; Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003; Van de Vegt,

Emans, &Van de Vliert, 1999). Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent each of the following statements

described their relationship with the other team members: ‘‘Goal attainment for one team member facilitates

goal attainment for the other teammembers;’’ ‘‘Gain for one teammember means gain for the other teammembers;’’

and ‘‘Success for one team member implies success for the other team members.’’

Group identification was measured, as in Van de Vegt and Bunderson (2005) and Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, and

Oosterhof (2003), using four items from the affective commitment scale (Jehn, Northcraft, &Neale, 1999). A sample

item was, ‘‘I am proud to tell others that I am part of this team.’’

Group potency was measured using four items from Guzzo et al. (1993). These four items were adapted to

the project team context. The items included ‘‘No task is too tough for my team,’’ ‘‘My team has confidence in itself,’’

‘‘My team expects to be known as a high performing team,’’ and ‘‘My team can get a lot done when it works hard.’’

Group performance was measured by four items taken from prior research (e.g., Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000)

and adapted to the IT project context based on focus group interviews. Project managers rated their team’s

performance at the time of the interview on four criteria: (a) The team has produced output of high technical quality;

(b) the team has earned high customer satisfaction; (c) the team has kept its project on schedule; and (d) the team has

excellent cost performance.

Control variables. Prior research has demonstrated a relationship between team size and outcomes (Ancona &

Caldwell, 1992; Van de Vegt & Bunderson, 2005), we controlled for team size in our analyses. Team size

was measured by the total number of teammembers. Project tenure (similar to group longevity) was measured by the

number of months the project had been started by the time we surveyed the project manager. Project completion

stage was measured by the percentage of the project work that has been completed at the time of the survey.

Analysis

Teammembers provided ratings of thewhole group on goal interdependence, fostering the acceptance of group goals

by the project manager, group identification, and group potency. Project managers provided ratings of team

performance. We first conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) at the team member level to examine the

factorial structure of the subscales for measuring goal interdependence, fostering acceptance of group goals, group

potency, and group identification. Table 1 shows the CFA results. An a priori four-dimensional factor structure fit the

data reasonably well, x2 (84, N¼ 422)¼ 310.93, p< 0.01; RMSEA¼ 0.08; GFI¼ 0.91; NNFI¼ 0.94, CFI¼ 0.95,

SRMR¼ 0.05. All items loaded significantly on their designated factors with factor loadings ranging from

0.48 to 0.95. To establish the discriminant validity of the constructs, we compared the above baseline model to

alternative models. As shown in Table 1, the CFA results indicated that the alternative model fit the data poorly, and

had a significantly worse fit than the baseline model. Taken together, these results suggest that the constructs

measured were distinct and that the measures had construct validity. These findings suggest that the four subscales

were valid for measuring their respective constructs at the individual level.

Data aggregation. Aggregating individual ratings to the group level is logically justified in measuring goal

interdependence, fostering acceptance of group goals, group identification, and group potency because all these

variables refer the characteristics of the group. To aggregate them to the group level, we must demonstrate that there

is sufficient within-group homogeneity. We tested whether the ratings of group members were reasonably

homogeneous before the data were aggregated to the group level, using the Rwg (J) index, which is an estimate of

inter-rater agreement in multi-item scales (James, Demaree, &Wolf, 1993). The median Rwg (J) indices for the four


DOI: 10.1002/job

Table 1. Comparison of measurement models for study variables (N¼ 422)

Models Descriptions X2 df Dx2 RMSEA NNFI CFI

Null model All the indicators are independent 4601.66 105Baseline model(four-factors)

Fostering group goal,goal interdependence,group identification, and group potency

304.20 84 310.93�� 0.08 0.94 0.95

Model 1 (three factors) Fostering group goal andgoal interdependence werecombined into one factor

842.83 87 538.63�� 0.15 0.80 0.83

Model 2 (three factors) Group identification andgroup potency were combinedinto one factor

512.91 87 208.71�� 0.11 0.89 0.91

Model 3 (two factors) Fostering group goal and goalinterdependence were combinedinto one factor; group identificationand group potency were combinedinto another factor

1054.05 89 749.85�� 0.17 0.75 0.79

Notes: ��p< 0.01.

1154 C. LEE ET AL.

variables across the 71 teams were 0.95 for goal interdependence, 0.95 for fostering acceptance of group goals, 0.78

for group potency, and 0.90 for group identification. George and Bettenhausen (1990) argued that an Rwg (J) greater

than or equal to 0.70 could be considered as an indicator of good agreement within a group. We thus concluded

that within-team ratings for these four variables were homogeneous enough to be aggregated to the team level.

Correlations among the study’s variables at the team level are shown in Table 2.

Path analysis.We assessed the proposed model with maximum likelihood estimation using LISREL 8.5 (Joreskog

& Sorbom, 1993). All subsequent analyses were based on the covariance matrix. Since our sample size was small

(71 teams) in this study and our major purpose was to investigate the causal relationships among the latent

factors, we specified the measurement model by using the averages of all the items measuring a construct as

a single indicator of that construct (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982). Following Barrick, Mount, and Strauss (1993),

we fixed the error variances of the manifest variables and paths from the latent factors to the manifest variables

using observed variances of the manifest variables and their reliability (see Alper et al., 2000; Law & Wong, 1999;

Tsai & Huang, 2002 for recent applications of this approach). Specifically, the paths were set as the product of

the square root of the reliability and the observed standard deviations of the manifest variables. Error variances of

the manifest variables were set as the observed variances of the manifest variables multiplied by one minus their

reliability estimates. Reliabilities were estimated using the coefficient alpha.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix among variables (N¼ 71)

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Group performance 5.44 0.96 0.762. Group potency 5.56 0.52 0.35�� 0.743. Group identification 5.53 0.59 0.21 0.62�� 0.914. Fostering group goal 5.63 0.66 0.03 0.48�� 0.55�� 0.945. Goal interdependence 5.80 0.39 0.19 0.45�� 0.59�� 0.36�� 0.816. Team size 5.94 2.34 0.06 0.14 0.22 0.11 0.21 —7. Project Tenure (in months) 9.07 9.19 �0.07 �0.27� �0.04 �0.04 �0.16 0.018. Project completion stage 64.82 25.89 0.10 �0.17 �0.05 �0.11 �0.20 0.37��

Note: Values on the diagonal are Cronbach’s alphas.�p< 0.05. ��p< 0.01 (two tailed tests).


DOI: 10.1002/job


Results

The means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and bivariate correlations of all major variables are

presented in Table 2. As can be seen from Table 2, Cronbach alpha for multi-item scales ranged from 0.74 to 0.94,

indicating that our measures were reliable. Team size, project tenure, and project completion stage were

uncorrelated with team performance (r¼ 0.06,�0.07, and 0.10, respectively). Nevertheless, we first conducted path

analysis to test the hypothesized structural model (Figure 1) with team size, team tenure, and project completion

stage as controls. Because the results obtained with controls were nearly identical to those obtained

without controls, for ease of presentation, we reported the findings below without including controls. The

hypothesized structural model fits the data well, x2 (5, N¼ 71)¼ 5.42, p> 0.37; RMSEA¼ 0.00; GFI¼ 0.97; NNFI

(TLI)¼ 0.99; CFI¼ 1.00. Figure 2 shows the path coefficients from this analysis. All hypothesized paths are

statistically significant (either at p< 0.01 or p< 0.05 levels) and in the predicted directions, offering support of our

hypotheses.

Supporting Hypothesis 1, Figure 2 shows that the positive association between fostering acceptance of group goals

and group identification was statistically significant (p¼ 0.39, p< 0.01). Supporting Hypothesis 2, goal

interdependence was positively related to group identification (p¼ 0.53, p< 0.01). Figure 2 also shows support for

Hypothesis 3 that group identification related positively to group potency (p¼ 0.76, p< 0.01). Hypothesis 4 predicts

that group identification transmits the effects of goal interdependence and fostering acceptance of group goals on

group potency. We tested this hypothesis by examining the indirect effect from fostering acceptance of group goals

to group identification to group potency, which was significant (p¼ 0.30, p< 0.01) and the indirect effect from goal

interdependence to group identification to group potency, which was also significant (p¼ 0.40, p< 0.01). In

addition, neither the direct effect from fostering acceptance of group goals to group potency nor the direct effect

from goal interdependence to group potency was significant when they were added to the model, which suggests

that group identification fully mediated these relationships. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was fully supported. Hypothesis 5

regarding the positive association between group potency and group performance was supported (p¼ 0.43,

p< 0.01). Hypothesis 6 predicts that group potency mediates the effect of group identification on group

performance. We tested this hypothesis by examining the indirect effect from group identification to group potency

to group performance, which was significant (p¼ 0.32, p< 0.01). In addition, the direct effect of group identification

on group performance was non-significant when it was added to the model, which suggests that group potency

fully mediated the relationship between group identification and group performance. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was fully

supported.

Figure 2. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized model; ��p< 0.01


DOI: 10.1002/job

Figure 3. Standardized parameter estimates for the alternative model 1; �p< 0.05; ��p< 0.01

1156 C. LEE ET AL.

Alternative model evaluation

The alternative models (Figures 3–5) to the proposed model (Figure 2) suggest that the relational order between

group identification, goal interdependence, fostering acceptance of group goals and group potency could be reversed.

It is possible to argue that group potency comes from interdependent goals since feedback from interdependent goals

inform the group about their member capability. It is also possible that fostering acceptance of group goal and group

identification contribute to member’s perception that their goals are interdependent and that this goal

interdependence is the mediator of fostering acceptance of group goals, group identification, and group potency

(see Figure 3, alternative model 1). Additionally, it is possible to argue that groups with interdependent goals and

with leaders fostering acceptance of group goals may develop high group potency first, which in turn enhances each

member’s identification with the group (Figure 4, alternative model 2). In other words, this alternative model

suggests that group potency mediates the effects between goal interdependence and fostering acceptance of group

goals, and group identification, and that group identification further mediates the relationship between group potency

with group performance. The third alternative model (Figure 5, alternative model 3) proposes that group potency,

along with fostering acceptance of group goals and goal interdependence are antecedents of group identification. As

in Figure 5, group identification is hypothesized to mediate the relationship between the antecedents and group

performance. While the theoretical reasoning behind the three alternative models is not as strong as that behind the

proposed model, it is prudent to test these alternative models, given the seemingly high correlation between group

identification and group potency and that these variables were measured from the same source (i.e., group members).



DOI: 10.1002/job



We then fit the observational data into the alternative models. In the alternative model 1 (see Figure 3), we simply

reversed the relationship between group identification and goal interdependence without changing any of the other

paths in the proposed model. Results show that the fit of this alternative model 1 was poor with x2 (5,N¼ 71)¼ 18.3,

p< 0.01; RMSEA¼ 0.19; GFI¼ 0.91; AGFI¼ 0.73; NNFI¼ 0.72; CFI¼ 0.86. The path from group identification

to group performance was not significant.

In the alternative model 2 (see Figure 4), we simply reversed the relationship between group identification and

group potency without changing any of the other paths in the proposed model. In other words, we still maintained the

fostering acceptance of group goals and goal interdependence links to group identification without switching them to

group potency. Results show that the fit of this alternative model 2 was poor with x2 (5, N¼ 71)¼ 15.48, p< 0.01;

RMSEA¼ 0.20; GFI¼ 0.91; AGFI¼ 0.73; NNFI¼ 0.78; CFI¼ 0.89.

In the alternative model 3 (see Figure 5), fostering acceptance of group goals, goal interdependence, and group

potency were hypothesized to have direct effects on group identification, which, in turn, affects group performance.

Results show that the fit of the alternative model 3 was poor, x2 (5, N¼ 71)¼ 7.90, p< 0.05; RMSEA¼ 0.15;

GFI¼ 0.96; AGFI¼ 0.79; NNFI¼ 0.83; CFI¼ 0.93. Since the three alternative models were not nested within the

proposed model, this prevents us from conducting x2 difference tests to directly compare model fit between

the proposed model and each of the three alternative models. Nevertheless, the three alternative models all had poor

fit as indicated by significant model chi-square values, high RMSEA, and low GFI, AGFI, NNFI, and CFI values.

These observations gave strong support to our proposed model that group potency mediates the effect between group

identification and group performance than the three alternative models.

Discussion and Conclusions

Our paper employs group identification theory and proposes and tests a model of antecedents and consequences of

group potency in project teams from the Greater China Region. Based on the results from 71 project teams and

their project managers, our findings support results of previous studies that group potency relates positively to group

performance (de Jong et al., 2005; Gully et al., 2002; Lester et al., 2002). Our study shows that it is important


DOI: 10.1002/job

1158 C. LEE ET AL.

for members to accept their group’s goals and that goal attainment depends on every member working

collaboratively. Our results suggest that in order for team members to have a heightened sense of group potency, it

is also essential for teams to generate a sense of group identity and to strengthen the group’s identity by fostering the

acceptance of group goals and creating goal interdependence among the team members.

One key finding is the role of the leader in engendering group members’ collective identification. Fostering group

goals and creating goal interdependence provide structure of members’ to interpret how their work roles relate to

the group’s mission, and thereby priming collective identification (Wu, Tsui & Kinicki., 2010). Our findings support

other studies examining other elements of leadership such as transformational by Wu et al. (2010), leader supportive

behavior by Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper (1998), and leader emphasis on collective identity (Shamir et al.,

2000) are positively related to unit identification. Our results have implication for leadership development in training

leaders what to do in order to foster group identification.

While Lester et al. (2002) found that communication and cooperation facilitated the development of group

potency in newly formed work groups, our study suggests that group identification is one key contributor to group

potency. When team members perceive the team’s goals, interests, and norms as their own, and have a sense of

emotional involvement in the group since their goals are interdependent, this sense of identity and oneness with the

team promotes a heightened sense of potency that contributes to the collective performance. Future studies

should examine other contextual factors, such as team climate including team cooperation and communication, team

support, team member composition and characteristics and reward systems that may inhibit or promote team

identification and potency.

Along with the results of Lester et al. (2002) who found that newly formed high school students teams’ perceived

potency predicted group satisfaction, effort, and performance and those of Hirschfeld et al. (2005) who found

that potency predicted task proficiency, social cohesion, and observed teamwork among newly formed teams in a

military setting, our study further contributes to the predictive validity of group potency with results from 71 project

teams in the Greater China region. Together, the results of these studies suggest that group potency can be created

relatively early in the group formation process and can have positive effects on group outcomes. Future studies

should examine the generalizability of these findings in other groups and other cultural contexts.

Theoretically, our study indicates the importance of integrating group identification and social cognitive theories

in predicting group level outcomes. Developing group norms via fostering acceptance of group goals and goal

interdependence are ways to integrate personal and group identification. Future studies should examine other

external (e.g., team culture, role models) or internal (team member dispositions) factors that influence the

identification process.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. The first is our cross-sectional design, which raises questions regarding reverse

causality. For example, one might argue that, as in our alternative model, members developed group potency

that influences their group identification. Recently, Wu et al. (2010) in a three-wave study (each wave one month

apart), found that group-focused transformational leadership (time 1) predicted group identification (time 1), and

that group identification (time 1) predicted time 2 collective efficacy. Group identification and collective efficacy was

also positively related (b¼ 0.51, p< 0.05). Their time 2 collective efficacy was also related positively to time 3

group effectiveness (group performance and group viability). These empirical studies, combined with our theoretical

argument, suggest that identification leads to potency, rather than that potency leads to identification. In addition,

results of our alternative models showed poorer fit than the hypothesized model. Although we believe that reverse

causality is a problem in our study.

Given the cross-sectional research design used in our study, we could not completely rule out the possibility of

reverse causation between identification and potency. Future research should examine these causal relationship using

experimental or longitudinal field studies.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Another limitation is our small sample size (n¼ 71 groups). However, our group-level sample size is comparable

to other published studies. For example, Lester et al. (2002) had a small sample of 31 groups. Further, Van der Vegt

and Bunderson’s (2005) study analyzed 57 teams. Given these prior studies, we believe that sample size is not a

significant issue in our findings.

The third limitation may be method bias. We used multiple sources (team members and project managers) to

reduce the possibility of artifacts associated with single-source bias. Only one of the five variables (group

performance) in our hypothesized model was assessed by the project managers. Additionally, since our study

employed a correlational design and most of the variables (with the exception of group performance rated by

supervisors) came from the same source, our study is susceptible to common method variance (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Table 1 shows the comparison of measurement models and the results

demonstrate discriminant validity of the constructs in our study. Thus, common method bias is unlikely to account

for our entire results.

Fourth, our study was conducted in one organization in Chinese context. Although this may reduce the

generalizability of our findings, testing our hypothesized model in one organization and one cultural context reduces

the likelihood that contextual factors, such as organizational culture, might play a role in affecting our results. Future

studies should extend our theoretical model cross-culturally and examine longitudinally cross-level effects from both

individual member preferences for working in groups and leadership orientation in affecting group identification and

potency.

Lastly, time and team longevity may affect team effectiveness. However, team longevity did not affect the positive

relationship between group potency and team effectiveness in Gully et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis. Our results were

similar to Gully et al.’s such that project completion stage did not affect the results of our hypothesized model.

As suggested by Gully et al., potency perceptions may become increasingly homogenous over time. More

longitudinal and experimental studies are needed to examine how group potency develops in various team settings.

Practical implications

Our study offers several implications for practitioners trying to increase group performance in cross-national project

teams. Our findings suggest that, in order to capitalize on potential advantages offered by groups, managers should

actively enhance the sense of group identification of group members. Our study suggests that there are numerous

ways to enhance group identification. For example, managers can enhance group identification by fostering the

acceptance of group goals that are interdependent. Our study further suggests that strengthening group identification

is worthwhile because group members develop a stronger sense of group potency, which leads to greater group

performance.

In conclusion, our results using project teams from the Greater China region are consistent with those reported

by Gully et al. that group potency is positively related to group performance. We further suggest that it is important

to understand the sources of group potency using group identification theory (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005).

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong

Special Administrative Region, China (Project HKUST6306/04H) awarded to Jiing-Lih Farh and Cynthia Lee. The

work described in this paper was also supported by the Walsh Professorship awarded to Cynthia Lee by the College

of Business Administration, Northeastern University.


DOI: 10.1002/job

1160 C. LEE ET AL.

Author biographies

Cynthia Lee, PhD is the Chair Professor, Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic

University and Professor, Management and Organizational Development Group, Northeastern University. Her

research interests focus on managing change and innovation, performance management, employee-employer

relationships, and job insecurity especially in Chinese contexts.

Jiing-Lih (Larry) Farh is the Chair Professor of Management at the Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology. He received Ph.D. from Indiana University at Bloomington. His research interests focus on the study of

organizational behavior in Chinese contexts (such as cultural values, leadership, teams, and organizational

citizenship behavior).

Zhi-jun Chen is a doctoral student specializing in organizational behavior in the Department of Management at the

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His research interests include organizational citizenship

behavior, cultural values, demographic diversity and leadership issues in the Chinese context.

REFERENCES

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. PersonnelPsychology, 53, 625–642.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. OrganizationScience, 3, 321–341.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.Bandura, A. (1997). Collective efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (pp. 477–525). New York:Freeman.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of themediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2,339–444.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness:Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.

Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizationalcitizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 273–287.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. HumanRelations, 49, 643–676.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy ofManagement Journal, 12, 637–647.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.de Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of group potency: A study of self-managingservice teams. Management Science, 51, 1610–1625.

Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizationalidentification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507–533.

Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I.C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A questions of how much and when. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95, 1173–1180.

Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Murrell, A. J., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692–704.

George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-levelanalysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698–709.

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.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Gibson, C. B., Randel, A., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Work team efficacy: An assessment of group confidence estimation methods.Group and Organization Management, 25, 67–97.

Gully, S. M. (2000). Work team research: Recent findings and future trends. In M. M. Beyerlein (Ed.),Work teams: Past, present,and future (pp. 25-44). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analaysis of team-efficacy, potency, andperformance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 819–832.

Guzzo, R. A., Campbell, R. J., Moses, J. L., Ritchie, R. R., Schneider, B., & Shaff, K., et al. (1991). What makes high-performingteams effective?. University of Maryland working paper.

Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal ofSocial Psychology, 32, 87–106.

Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Field, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Armenakis, A. A. (2005). Teams’ female representation andperceived potency as inputs to team outcomes in a predominantly male field setting. Personnel Psychology, 58, 893–924.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 78, 306–309.

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. S., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Janssen, O., & Huang, X. (2008). Us and me: Team identification and individual differentiation as complementary drivers of teammembers’s citizenship and creative behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 69–88.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, andperformance in work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8, Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago:Scientific Software International Inc.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88, 246–255.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Kozlowski, S.W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. InW. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology 12, 333–375. London: Wiley.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in thePublic Interest, 7, 77–124.

Law, K. S., & Wong, C. S. (1999). Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis: An illustration using the jobperception and job satisfaction constructs. Journal of Management, 25, 143–160.

Lee, C., Tinsley, C. H., & Bobko, P. (2002). An investigation of the antecedents and consequences of group-level confidence.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1628–1652.

Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. W. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinalinvestigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 352–368.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma matter: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizationalidentification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements anda glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Ahearne, M. (1997). Moderating effects of goal acceptance on the relationship betweengroup cohesiveness and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 974–983.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership asdeterminants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management,22, 259–298.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: Acritical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). The impact of transformational leader behaviors onemployee trust, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership – a self-concept based theory.Organization Science, 4, 577–594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’attitudes, unit characteristics, and superior’s appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387–409.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (2000). Leadership and social identification in militaray units. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 30, 612–640.

Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28, 25–31.


DOI: 10.1002/job

1162 C. LEE ET AL.

Sivasubramanian, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership andgroup potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27, 66–96.

Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses oftheir relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 814–828.

Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal ofManagement, 32, 29–54.

Thatcher, S. M. B., & Zhu, X. (2006). Changing identifies in a changing workplace: Identification, identity enactment, self-verification, and telecommuting. Academy of Management Review, 31, 1076–1088.

Tjosvold, D. (1984). Cooperation theory and organizations. Human Relations, 37, 743–767.Tjosvold, D. (1998). The cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 47, 285–313.

Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving. The Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1223–1245.

Tsai, W. C., & Huang, I. M. (2002). Mechanisms linking employee affective delivery and customer behavioral intentions. Journalof Applied Psychology, 87, 1001–1008.

Tsai, A. S., Egan, T., & O’Reilly, C. A. I. I. I. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment.Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergrouprelations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: Europeandevelopments in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 518–538). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations and leadership. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theoryand research (pp. 25–65). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Van de Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collectiveteam identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532–547.

Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (1999). Interdependence in project teams. Journal of Social Psychology,139, 202–214.

Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal ofManagement, 29, 729–751.

Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenshipbehavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 715–727.

Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 307–334.Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual jobperformance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793–825.

Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of ManagementJournal, 53, 90–106.


DOI: 10.1002/job

Promoting group potency in project teams: The importance of group identification

Documents

Transcript of Promoting group potency in project teams: The importance of group identification