Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2020.11.6.227

Effects of Leader Selection Procedure and Collective Efficacy on Group Performance  

Cho, Eun-Nu-Ri (Graduate School of Education, Daegu University)
Seok, Dong-Heon (Dept. of Psychology, Daegu University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Convergence Society / v.11, no.6, 2020 , pp. 227-235 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study expanded the superiority of random leader selection procedure on group decision-making task to actual group performance task, and examined the interaction effects of leader selection procedure(LSP) and collective efficacy(CE) on group performance. 2(LSP: formal/random)×2(CE: low/high) between subject design was used. The result revealed the significant main effect of LSP, which showed that groups with random leader performed better than those with formally selected leader. Further, significant interaction effect of LSP and CE revealed that when group's CE was high, group with random leader performed better than group with formally selected leader, and the difference between two groups was not significant when group's CE was low. These results suggested that LSP should not impair shared social identity of the group in order to maintain the positive effect of CE on group performance. The necessity for expanding these results to work team was discussed.
Keywords
Leader; Leadership; Leader Selection Procedure; Collective Efficacy; Group Performance; Social Identity Theory; Self-Categorization Theory;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 B. E. Ashforth & F. Mael. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39. DOI : 10.5465/AMR.1989.4278999   DOI
2 J. C. Turner, P. J. Oakes, S. A. Haslam & C. A. McGarty. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-463. DOI : 10.1177/0146167294205002   DOI
3 S. A. Haslam, C. McGarty, P. M. Brown, R. A. Eggins & B. E. Morrison. (1998). Inspecting the emperor's clothes: Evidence that random selection of leaders can enhance group performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(3), 168-184. DOI : 10.1037/1089-2699.2.3.168   DOI
4 K. K. Ahuja, G. Srivastava, P. Padhy & N. Yadav. (2019). (Un)easy lies the head that wears the crown: Leadership selection and group performance among undergraduate women. Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour, 8(1), 16-23.
5 D. D. Henningsen, M. L. M. Henningsen, L. Jakobsen & I. Borton. (2004). It's good to be leader: The influence of randomly and systematically selected leaders on decision-making groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(1), 62-76. DOI : 10.1037/1089-2699.8.1.62   DOI
6 J. Y. Cho, S. S. Ham & Y. W. Sohn. (2014). The influence of leader's age and leader selection on group decision making. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 14(7), 242-252. DOI : 10.5392/JKCA.2014.14.07.242   DOI
7 J. E. McGrath. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Inc.
8 A. Bandura. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
9 A. D. Stajkovic, D. Lee & A. J. Nyberg. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814-828. DOI : 10.1037/a0015659   DOI
10 A. Capiola, G. M. Alarcon, J. B. Lyons, T. J. Ryan & T. R. Schneider. (2019). Collective efficacy as a mediator of the trustworthiness-performance relationship in computer-mediated team-based context. Journal of Psychology, 153(7), 732-757. DOI : 10.1080/00223980.2019.1606772   DOI
11 J. J. Park. (2010). The analysis of teacher and school effect on collective teacher efficacy. The Journal of Educational Administration, 28(4), 21-41.
12 E. Lee. (2015). The relations between Remote Associates Test's component and difficulty. Master's dissertation, Sogang University, Seoul.
13 B. Latané, K. D. Williams & S. Harkins. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822-832. DOI : 10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822   DOI
14 N. L. Kerr & S. E. Bruun. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78-94. DOI : 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.78   DOI
15 K. D. Williams & S. J. Karau. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570-581. DOI : 10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.570   DOI
16 J. Y. Nho & D. H. Seok. (2018). Effects of group cohesion, perception of co-worker effort and work condition on social loafing and social compensation. Locality and Globality: Korean Journal of Social Sciences, 42(1), 127-151. DOI : 10.33071/ssricb.42.1.201804.127   DOI
17 H. Tajfel & J. C. Turner. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 34-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-cole.
18 H. Tajfel & J. C. Turner. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
19 J. C. Turner. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A Social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2. pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
20 J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher & M. S. Wetherel. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
21 D. W. Hahn. (2002). Theories of Group Behavior. Seoul: Sigma Press.