In this paper we addressed one aspect of team cognition, namely shared knowledge, and investigated the relationship between shared knowledge and collective efficacy. The task was doubles tennis; participants were 160 adults, for a total of 80 teams. Data was collected via self-report questionnaires. As we had suspected, there was a strong, positive relationship between collective efficacy and shared knowledge (r = .5, p < .05). Using hierarchical regression, we also found that team familiarity was positively related to shared knowledge, while both task skill and team familiarity were positively related to collective efficacy
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlickensderferB.ReynoldsR.T.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. (2010). Shared mental models and implicit communication in tennis doubles. Journal of Applied Sports Psychology, 22(4), 486-499.
2.
BrannickM.T.PrinceC. (1997). An overview of team performance measurement. In BrannickM.T.SalasE.PrinceC. (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods and applications, (pp. 3-16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
3.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.ConverseS. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In CastellanJ.Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group decision making (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
4.
EcclesD.TenenbaumG. (2007). A social-cognitive perspective on team functioning in sport. In TennenbaumG.EklundR. (Eds.) Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd ed.) pp. 264-283. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons.
5.
GibsonC. (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
6.
GibsonC. B.EarleyC. (2007). Collective cognition in action: accumulation, interaction, examination, and accommodation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 438-458
7.
GullyS.IncalcaterraK.JoshiA.BeaubienJ. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.
8.
HeuzeJ.RaimbaultN.FontayneP. (2006) Relationships between cohesion, collective efficacy and performance in professional basketball teams: An examination of mediating effects. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 59-68.
9.
JungD.SosikJ. (2002) Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336.
10.
LentR.SchmidtJ.SchmidtL. (2006). Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self -efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 73-84.
11.
MarksM. A. (1999). A test of the impact of collective efficacy in routine and novel performance environments. Human Performance, 2(3/4), 295-309.
12.
MarksM. A.SabellaM. J.BurkeC. S.ZaccaroS. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (1), 3-13.
13.
MarksM. A.ZaccaroS. J.MathieuJ. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971-986.
14.
MathieuJ. E.HeffnerT. S.GoodwinG. F.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.
15.
MulveyP.KleinH. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy in group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 62-87.
16.
NunnallyJ .C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
17.
PedersenH.K.CookeN.J. (2006). From battle plans to football plays: Extending military team cognition to football. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4, 422-446.
18.
ReimerT.ParkE.S.HinszV.B. (2006). Shared and coordinated cognition in competitive and dynamic task environments: An information-processing perspective for team sports. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4, 376-400.
19.
Smith-JentschK. A.MathieuJ. E.KraigerK. (2005). Investigating linear and interactive effects of shared mental models on safety and efficiency in a field setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 523-535.
20.
StoutR. J.Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.MilanovichD. M. (1999). Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Human Factors, 41, 61-71.
21.
TravillianK.BakerC. V.Cannon-BowersJ. A. “Correlates of self and collective efficacy with team functioning.” 38th annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Knoxville, TN. 1992.
