The power of teams: Do self-managing work teams influence managers' perceptions of potency? Page: 5
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Collective self-esteem, also defined at the individual level, analyzes the way in which
members self-evaluate their group. The emphasis is placed on the individual and how he or she
views their status as a valued member inside the group (Ellemers, Doosje, & Spears, 2004). As
with collective motivation, collective self-esteem is based on individual-level characteristics.
However, unlike collective motivation, collective self-esteem is a value judgment not based on
rewards and therefore might be a better representative of self-managing work teams.
Group aspirations, an older construct, is considered a group-level attribute (Guzzo et al.,
1993). Emphasis is placed on the group selecting and agreeing to a task, the aim of the task and
its level of difficulty, and the decision-making functions surrounding the task. (Zander, 1971;
Zander & Medow, 1965). Because group aspirations is a goal-oriented construct that stresses the
importance of group objectives, it is more conducive to the communal spirit of self-managing
work teams. However, the term itself is antiquated and therefore very little current research
exists on the construct.
A related and more contemporary concept of group aspirations, as well as collective self-
esteem, is the construct of collective efficacy. This construct is related to group aspirations
because it is, in part, a task-oriented concept. Additionally, because collective efficacy is an
individual-level attribute based on members' judgments of group capabilities, it is also related to
collective self-esteem (Little & Madigan, 1997). Because collective efficacy can be linked to
certain elements of collective self-esteem and group aspirations, and because it is a more
prevalent topic within the literature, it will be described here in more detail. It should be noted
that other terms such as group efficacy (Gibson, 1999; Gibson et al., 2000; Pescosolido, 2003)
and team efficacy (Gully et al., 2002) have been used to illustrate essentially the same concept.
For the sake of clarity, the term collective efficacy will be used in this paper.
Collective efficacy has been defined by Guzzo et al. (1993, p. 90) as "an individual's
Here’s what’s next.
This thesis can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Thesis.
Hass, Nicolette P. The power of teams: Do self-managing work teams influence managers' perceptions of potency?, thesis, December 2005; Denton, Texas. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4961/m1/11/: accessed May 21, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; .