Beyond Self-Efficacy: Interactive Effects of Role Conflict and Perceived Collective Efficacy

Abstract

The last three decades have produced a number of studies that have examined the antecedents and consequences of self-efficacy. In general, reviews of the literature describe self-efficacy as an individual's judgment of his or her ability to successfully complete a chosen task (e.g., Bandura, 1977, 1978, 1997; Gist, 1987; Gist and Mitchell, 1992). Findings indicate self-efficacy influences an individual's choice among activities, persistence when problems arise (Bandura, 1986), and a variety of work outcomes, including performance ratings (Gardner and Pierce, 1998) and attendance (Latham and Frayne, 1989). Concordant with the definition of self-efficacy, collective efficacy refers to members' perceptions of their group's competency (Bandura, 1986) or aggregated ability to successfully complete a designated task (Guzzo et al., 1993). Belief structures are present in most work groups (Louis and Sutton, 1991), and these opinions regarding a group's collective efficacy may have important effects on an individual's experiences and reactions at work. Although collective efficacy has been the subject of very little research (Bandura, 1997), findings suggest that it varies among groups (Campion et al., 1993), and that it is positively correlated with job satisfaction, commitment (Riggs and Knight, 1994), and task performance (Parker, 1994; Prussia and Kinicki, 1996). Jex and Gudanowski (1992) also reported several significant relationships between collective efficacy and perceived problems at work (i.e., job stressors) and psychological strains. Taken together, these studies suggest that beliefs about the collective efficacy of one's work group may significantly influence a variety of work outcomes. However, additional work is needed to uncover the effects of perceived collective efficacy after considering the effects of self-efficacy. For example, the literature has not examined what, if any, effects arise from an individual's beliefs regarding his or her work group's efficacy after considering the effects of self-efficacy. We propose that one possible consequence of perceived collective efficacy may be its relationship to job stressors that the individual encounters. Many employees encounter role conflict in their jobs. This stressor arises when a job incumbent is confronted by incompatible or incongruous expectations that are difficult or impossible to simultaneously satisfy (Kahn et al., 1964). Greater role conflict is consistently associated with greater job stress and burnout (e.g., Lee and Ashforth, 1993). The lean structures of today's organizations make it likely that role conflict will continue to be a frequent source of stress for many employees. The purpose of the current study is two-fold. First, we examine the direct effects of perceived collective efficacy, after statistically controlling for self-efficacy beliefs, on three outcomes important to both the organization and individual: job satisfaction, job exhaustion, and intent to turnover. Next, we extend previous studies by examining the interaction of perceptions of collective efficacy and role conflict on the three outcome variables. Given that many jobs are performed within a group setting and team based approaches are growing (for reviews, see Bettenhausen, 1991; Guzzo and Dickson, 1996; Weingart, 1997), empirical investigations of this nature appear warranted. In the following sections, we first briefly discuss the importance of the outcome variables examined in this study. We then discuss the relevance of perceived collective efficacy in a nursing environment and the expected hypotheses that we tested. Finally, we present our findings, discuss the potential implications for managers, and offer directions for future research. Outcome Variables Job satisfaction is an emotional and cognitive state resulting from evaluating one's task, activity, job, or other related experiences (Locke, 1976). Research has long shown that job dissatisfaction is associated with more employee stress and an increase in heart disease and poor mental health (Cooper and Payne, 1988). …