Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aims to examine whether competent members produce good performance from the social identity theory perspective. Specifically, it investigates the moderating effect of perceived team performance and group cohesiveness in the competency–performance relationship. Data from 427 employees with multi-source at a manufacturing company were used for a hierarchical regression analysis. The results show that competency has a positive effect on the individual performance, and competent individuals with a highly perceived team performance tend to demonstrate better performance. Unlike the results of the perceived team performance, group cohesiveness has a negative interactive effect with competency regarding performance.

Keywords

competency perceived team performance group cohesiveness social identity theory

Introduction

Traditional approaches to individual performances in organizations have focused on individual cognitive factors such as generalized mental ability (Bell, 2007), competency (McClelland, 1973), personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). However, in the context of Lewin’s field interpretation, a person’s behavior depends on his complete subjective situation. A person’s mind is a complex energy field that contains systems of tension in various states of equilibrium and behavior, which acts as a change in the state of this energy field (Lewin, 1951). Therefore, studies have begun to focus on the context as social and motivational variables to identify the factors that give rise to increased performance (Amabile, 1996; Campbell et al., 1993; Kristof, 1996; Schneider, 1987; Woodman et al., 1993).

Turner (1982) found that context influenced individual behavior and hypothesized that people are inspired to pursue social identity by comparing in-groups without-groups. There is a functional antagonism between in-group and out-group categorizations based on salience. It is the function of self-based comparisons with those who are socially interactive. In the social identity theory, a person does not have one “personal self” but rather many selves that correspond to the widening circles of group membership (Turner et al., 1987). The theory explains why people feel confident when they belong to socially valued groups (Guenter et al., 2016).

Perceived team performance is team members’ perceptions of their team’s productivity and performance (Jehn et al., 1993). Once team members believe their team to be an excellent one, they would like to identify with the team. Consequently, individuals in a valued group will elevate their self-evaluation and performance. Moreover, previous studies have presented that group cohesiveness is a key variable to understanding group dynamics (Zander, 1979). Probably, members with a high level of group cohesiveness achieve relatively more social integration and maintain strong interpersonal links with other members (Beal et al., 2003). Given a certain member’s strong relationships with the other members in their group, members’ identification with that individual is reinforced.

Therefore, this study seeks to examine factors that affect individual performance and extend previous findings based on whether social identity moderates the key effects on individual performance. Specifically, we first address theoretical premises and empirical evidence that competency positively influences individual performance. Next, we suggest that perceived team performance and group cohesiveness amplifies the relationship by team members’ social integration, thereby contributing to the research by filling in the theoretical gaps in the individual characteristics’ literature and identifying situational factors.

Theory, Literature Review, and Hypothesis

Competency as an Antecedent of Performance

The failure of traditional intelligence tests to predict job performance has prompted researchers to propose alternative trait and intelligence theories to measure performance. Such failure was followed by studies focusing on diverse variables to explain the differences in performances of individuals (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge & Bono, 2001; Kurz & Bartram, 2002; Mansfield, 1996; McClelland, 1973; Ng et al., 2006). McClelland (1973) reported that high-performing employees have differentiated characteristics such as interpersonal sensitivities, cross-cultural understanding, and management skills. His research suggested that individual competency was based on actual and differentiated behaviors of high and average performers (Dubois, 1998). Organ and Ryan (1995) also reported that knowledge, skills, and abilities improve task performance, and they argued that it is crucial to find conditions that can change such a relationship. Employees with high competency demonstrate skills, attitudes, and behaviors that are believed to be effective in the organization (Mansfield, 1996). Thus, many previous studies emphasize on individual competency as a major antecedent in predicting performance.

Although the application of competency has gradually become widespread in human resource management (Rodriguez et al., 2002; Wang & Chen, 2001), the validity of these approaches has been seriously questioned (Barrett & Depinet, 1991). As few empirical studies have tested the relationship between competency and performance, it becomes challenging to clearly address the impact of competency. Most competency studies have a few common methods available for examination in academic fields. For instance, in-depth interviews (Özçelik & Ferman, 2006) and Q-sort methods (Lievens et al., 2004) were used. Such a person-focused approach identifies competency as intangible with dynamic characteristics (Cheng et al., 2005). However, competency is not the functional task of the job, but the lists of available capabilities, activities, processes, and responses that enable effective completion of various work demands (Kurz & Bartram, 2002; Mansfield, 1999). Moreover, Boyatzis’s (1982) study recorded the general competency of 2,000 managers in 12 organizations. Therefore, based on the Boyatzis’s (1982) study, we adopt a general competency model. We then empirically examine whether competent individuals would obtain good results in the future.

Hypothesis 1: Individual competency positively influences individual performance.

Moderating Factor in Competency–Performance Relationship

Ashforth and Mael (1989) explained social identification as the perception of oneness with or belongingness to some human aggregation. According to the social identity theory, people feel confident when they belong to socially valued groups; therefore, individuals in a valued group will elevate their self-evaluation and performance (McFarland & Buehler, 1995). People do not have one personal self but multiple selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership (Turner et al., 1987). Perceptions of high team performance contribute to an individual’s self-worth, which then increases social identification. When members perceive their team performance to be higher, they are likely to invest more effort (Guenter et al., 2016).

On the contrary, social comparison theory demonstrates that people could be satisfied and motivated when they are in the less competent group due to downward comparison (Wheeler & Miyake, 1992). Such defensive tendency is used as a means of self-evaluation. When a person presumes that another person is in a worse position than them, it makes them feel better about their personal situation (Tesser et al., 1988). In a downward social comparison, similarities between individuals or groups are disassociated. However, it has mainly occurred in cases where individuals have encountered a threat to their self-esteem, the point where people with low self-esteem and negative affect enhance their mood by making downward comparisons (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993). Indeed, in an upward social comparison, people want to believe that they are a part of the elite group, and such comparisons emphasize the similarities between those people and their comparison group.

Drawing on social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and upward social comparison, we assume that if competent members perceive their team as a highly excellent group, they would like to identify with the group; furthermore, they would grow with group identification, which would help amplify the competency–performance relationship.

Hypothesis 2: Perceived team performance moderates an individual’s competency–performance relationship, such that the competent individual with a high-perceived team performance would perform better than an individual with a low-perceived team performance.

Cohesiveness is generally defined as “the resultant of all forces acting on all the members to remain in the group” (Cartwright, 1968, p. 91). Group cohesiveness is derived partly from social identity dynamics. The stronger the social identity dynamics is perceived, the more likely the members are to cooperate with each other (Dutton et al., 1994). Although group cohesiveness has primarily been examined at the group level, it has often been operationalized at individual level and correlated with individual variables (Gully et al., 1995). The individual-level approach would allow it to be properly operationalized with a potential link to individuals’ performances. In cohesive groups, individuals are more motivated by group tasks (Stogdill, 1972) and may have a higher level of commitment to obtaining group goals (Shaw, 1981). Klein and Mulvey (1995) showed that members of cohesive groups were directed toward more difficult task goals, which led to higher performance. Wech et al. (1998) examined that individuals’ perceptions of task competence in a cohesive group increased work-related responsibilities because they tended to receive positive and supportive feedback from other members.

The findings of such previous studies indicate that personal characteristics can be strengthened when people belong to groups that have social cohesion. Based on our review of the literature, it is reasonable to posit that variables having ties with people’s beliefs about the actions of their group will affect their behavior and attitudes. Figure 1 illustrates the research model and hypotheses in this study.

Hypothesis 3: Group cohesiveness moderates an individual’s competency–performance relationship, such that a competent individual in a high-perceived cohesive group would perform better than in a low-perceived cohesive group.

Figure 1.

Research model.

Method

Sample and Procedure

For organizational diagnosis, data were collected from employees while consulting with a manufacturing company in South Korea. There was an active intervention by the company’s personnel department during data collection. Therefore, a total of 462 employees in 52 work groups participated in the survey. All employees participated in the survey. To avoid common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), data were collected from multiple sources in three waves. First, we received employee’s competency rated by supervisors from the company HR department. After 5 months, surveys asking about perceived team performance and group cohesiveness were conducted. Finally, 7 months after the second wave, we received employee’s actual performance. Due to time differences in data collection, those who left the company were excluded from the data. Finally, we included 427 employees from 47 work groups. Table 1 summarize demographic characteristics of the data. Of the respondents, 96.9% were male and their average age was 32 years old. In terms of the highest education level achieved, 61% reported having a bachelor’s degree and 16% reported having a master’s degree or higher. Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted by using SPSS.

Table 1.

Demographic Variables Statistics (N = 427).

Variables	Number	%
Gender
Female	11	2.6
Male	348	81.5
Missing value	68	15.9
Age
20	144	33.7
30	196	45.9
40	28	6.6
Missing value	59	13.8
Education
High school	3	0.7
Community college	36	8.4
University	261	61.1
Graduate	69	16.2
Missing value	58	13.5
Department
Clerical	121	28.3
Non-clerical	306	71.7
Position
Staff	253	59.3
Manager	149	34.6
Missing value	25	5.9

Measures

Competency

The company developed a competency scale that reflects the desired performance standard. The competency measurement is based on Boyatzis’s (1982) competency model. The process of competency development is as follows: (a) analyze the company’s vision statement and annual strategy report, (b) define competent employees in the company, and (c) interview subject matter experts to identify the generic competency of high performers based on Boyatzis’s (1982) competency model. The analyses of the results revealed high-performing generic characteristics like “conscientiousness,” “declarative skill and knowledge,” “understanding organizational culture,” and “leadership and managerial skill.” Personnel department provided individual competency rating scores (M = 4.00, SD = 0.31). A 5-point scale was used.

Perceived team performance

Four items from Brannick et al. (1997) were used to measure the perceived team performance (α = .85). Sample items were “Our team’s work is of a high quality” and “So far, our team has been a great success.” These items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (M = 5.26, SD = 1.08). Cronbach’s alpha for the combined scale was .853.

Group cohesiveness

Group cohesiveness was measured to assess the degree to which members feel attracted to their groups and are willing to remain in the group. Six items of Choi (1991), who translated and modified Price and Muller’s (1986) items, were used. One example of an item was “How well do members of your group get along with each other?” These items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale where a higher score indicated greater cohesiveness. Cronbach’s alpha for the combined scale was .845 (M = 5.32, SD = 1.04).

Individual performance

Personnel department provided individual performance rating scores (M = 3.52, SD = 0.76). The data were collected with a 7-month time-lag from the survey and a 1-year time-lag from the competency data. A 5-point scale was used.

Control variables

We controlled the demographic variables that could affect the causality of our research variables. Gender was coded with 1 and 0 designating men and women, respectively. Position was coded with 1 for mid-line manager level and 0 for staff level. Department was coded with 0 for clerical work and 1 for non-clerical work. We controlled demographic variables because previous research has significantly linked them to our study variables. These demographic variables affect employee effort and engagement (Aquino & Douglas, 2003; Tang & Feng, 1996). Furthermore, Organ and Ryan (1995) and Gully et al. (1995) have suggested that these demographical variables may affect the individual’s in-role and extra-role performance. Therefore, we controlled the variables to accurately report the relationship between individual competency and their performance.

Results

Table 2 presents correlations and descriptive statistics for all measures included. Regarding the bivariate correlations, competency is positively correlated with individual performance, but perceived team performance and group cohesiveness do not relate significantly to performance.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations: Individual Level (N = 427).

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Individual performance	3.52	0.76
2. Gender	0.98	0.15	.06
3. Department	0.74	0.44	.05	.03
4. Position	0.41	0.49	.04	.08	−.16*
5. Competency	4.00	0.31	.18**	.05	−.10	.04
6. Perceived performance	5.26	1.08	.10	.16**	−.03	−.02	.05
7. Group cohesiveness	5.32	1.04	−.03	−.01	−.15*	.09	−.01	−.08

Note. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male, Department: 0 = clerical, 1 = non-clerical (i.e., production, R&D), Position: 0 = staff, 1 = manager level.

p < .05. **p < .01.

To examine our hypotheses, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses. Hypothesis 1 proposes a positive relationship between a member’s competency and individual performance. The analyses of the results show that individual competency positively influences individual performance (β = .18, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. As shown in Model 4 in Table 3, interaction between competency and perceived team performance is essential for predicting individual performance (β = 2.104, p < .05). Thus, for Hypothesis 2, the moderating effect of perceived team performance was also supported. Moreover, as shown in Model 4 in Table 3, group cohesiveness significantly moderates the relationship between competency and performance (β = −1.731, p < .10).

Table 3.

Results of the Relationship Between Competency, Group Cohesiveness, and Individual Performance (N = 427).

Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Step 1: Controls
Gender	0.051	0.042	0.028	0.032
Department	0.051	0.068	0.069	0.071
Position	0.044	0.04	0.044	0.048
Step 2: Main effects
Competency		0.18**	0.177**	0.075
Perceived performance			0.084	−1.854
Group cohesiveness			−0.017	1.601
Step 3: Moderating effect
Competency × Perceived performance				2.104*
Competency × Group cohesiveness				−1.731^†
Overall F	0.555	2.440*	1.930^†	2.354*
R ²	.007	.039	.046	.074
F change	0.555	8.046*	0.914	3.503*
R² change	.007	.032	.007	.027

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

To identify the form of the interaction, the equation at the high and low level of moderator was plotted. Figure 2 presents the form of the joint relationship of the competency and perceived team performance on individual performance. The competency–performance relationship was strengthened by perceived team performance. It demonstrates that competent individuals with high-perceived team performance achieve better results.

Figure 2.

The interaction effect of competency and perceived team performance on individual performance.

Figure 3 presents the moderating effect of group cohesiveness on the relationship between a member’s competency and performance. The interaction between competency and group cohesiveness on performance was significant, in contrast to Hypothesis 3, wherein the competency–performance relationship was attenuated by group cohesiveness.

Figure 3.

The interaction effect of competency and group cohesiveness on individual performance.

Discussion

This research examined the moderating effect of perceived team performance and group cohesiveness in the competency–performance relationship. Consistent with previous studies, perceived team performance positively moderates the competency–performance relationship. However, group cohesiveness negatively moderates the competency–performance relationship. Regarding this result, we refer to Hirschi and Stark’s (1969) study. They have focused on restraining factors that are broken or missing inside personalities. People depend on the feeling that they need to act morally and therefore will refrain from delinquent activities when they belong to a cohesive group like a religious group. In other words, if the sociological norms are internalized, personal characteristics could be restrained. Referring to Hirschi and Stark (1969) and Christakis and Fowler (2009), with respect to this research, competent employees with strong social bonds are regulated by social norms, attitudes, behaviors, and emotions; consequently, group cohesiveness could attenuate the competency–performance relationship. That is, individual characteristics could be restrained if they belong to groups which have strong ties. Furthermore, this result could be explained as “rate-buster” (e.g., Etzioni, 1975; Randall, 1987). Employees with high group cohesiveness have strong and frequent social interactions. Following the social comparison theory, such employees compare each other’s performance. After the comparison, social conformity pressures could arise, and competent employees regulate their performance to maintain group cohesiveness and to avoid being rate-busters. However, this result disagrees with some previous studies (Klein & Mulvey, 1995; Shaw, 1981; Stogdill, 1972; Wech et al., 1998), which reveal positive moderating effects of group cohesiveness. Indeed, group cohesiveness has some uncertainty regarding the exact nature of its relationship with performance (Langfred, 1998; Schachter, 1959). There has been an ongoing debate over whether there exists a positive relationship between performance and group cohesiveness (Langfred, 1998). Therefore, many researchers suggested the existence of a moderator (Schachter et al., 1951; Tziner & Vardi, 1982). This research proposes to add a moderator akin to that of a group norm to explore the role of group cohesiveness based on the previous studies (Hirschi & Stark, 1969; Langfred, 1998; Schachter, 1959).

Theoretical Implications

This research extends previous studies in three important ways. First, we empirically examined the relationship between individual competency and individual performance. Our research suggested a method of competency measurement based on the research sample by using Boyatzis’s (1982) model. Previous studies suffered from the methodological problem of using self-reported data (e.g., Hartje et al., 2008; Shah et al., 2020) or using the same measurement method for all samples (e.g., Forsman et al., 2020). The results of our study contributed to the wide acceptance of the competency model. Second, we found the moderator between competency and performance—perceived team performance increases the effect of competency on individual performance. This finding suggests that people who perceive their team as excellent tend to show the effect of competency—thus, social identity theory was supported. However, group cohesiveness negatively influenced the relationship between competency and performance because of social bond (Li, 2007). Group cohesiveness is typically considered to be a double-edged sword. Group cohesiveness could amplify individual characteristics, but also restrain such characteristics if they belong to strong cohesive groups. The results of our study suggest situational factors like group performance norm or curve linear effect of group cohesiveness.

Managerial Implications

Our study illustrates the importance of competency, perceived team performance, and group cohesiveness for managers. Practitioners have been interested in individual characteristics causing improved performance, but many studies have also emphasized a context (Amabile, 1996; Campbell et al., 1993; Kristof, 1996; Schneider, 1987; Woodman et al., 1993). In this study, we indicated that competency could be an important factor for individual performance; furthermore, we revealed the role of perceived team performance and group cohesiveness. Therefore, human resource managers must focus on selecting competent employees while maintaining group dynamics. Specifically, managers need to tackle situations such that competent employees can demonstrate their abilities. Employees must communicate among themselves regarding the team and continue being proud about each other’s performance; in addition, they must ensure that unnecessary conformity pressures caused by high group cohesiveness do not regulate their capabilities. In the long term, for employees who have low competency, managers need to develop their competency through human resource development processes. Moreover, it is essential for managers to use appropriate leadership skills with respect to the followers’ competency. Contrary to the hypothesis of this study, it was found that group cohesiveness may have a negative effect in improving the performance of competent employees. Although group cohesiveness is not an absolute good, like a double-edged sword advantages and disadvantages coexist. Managers should control group cohesiveness according to their followers’ competency for maximizing individual and organizational performance.

Limitations and Future Research

This article used company data (i.e., competency, individual performance), which resulted in weak control over the data. In particular, the competency measurement was based on a general competency model (Boyatzis, 1982), and the items were finally developed by the subject matter expert of the firm. Therefore, it had the possibility of reflecting firm-specific context. Although there was an advantage of being able to clearly understand causality by utilizing secondary data, there was a compromise that could reduce the possibility of generalization of the results. The terms of competency should be standardized and need to have more common methods available for examination in academic fields. Furthermore, as the information was collected from only one organization, the results of this study need to be cross-validated in other contexts. Moreover, although we suggest that perceived team performance promotes members’ work motivation, we did not control it except for demographic variables. We believe that future studies should explore predictors of performance under a context.

Conclusion

This article aims at finding not only the impact of competency but also the conditions that propel the key effects on individual performance. The results show that individual competency positively influences individual performance. Interestingly, perceived performance has a positive moderating effect while collective cohesion has a negative effect. Our study suggests that managers need to manage competent employees and take pride in their team members without exerting unnecessary conformity pressures.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the 2020 Yeungnam University Research Grant.

ORCID iD

Cheol Young Kim

References

Amabile

T. M.

(1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.

Aquino

Douglas

(2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 195–208.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

Aspinwall

L. G.

Taylor

S. E.

(1993). Effects of social comparison direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, self-evaluation, and expected success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 708–722.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Barrett

Depinet

(1991). A reconsideration of testing for competence rather than intelligence. American Psychologist, 46, 1012–1024.

Barrick

Mount

(1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.

Beal

D. J.

Cohen

R. R.

Burke

M. J.

McLendon

C. L.

(2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.

Bell

S. T.

(2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615.

10.

Boyatzis

R. E.

(1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. John Wiley.

11.

Brannick

M. T.

Salas

Prince

(1997). Team performance assessment and measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Campbell

J. P.

McCoy

R. A.

Oppler

S. H.

Sager

C. E.

(1993). A theory of performance. In Schmitt

Borman

W. C.

(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). Jossey-Bass.

13.

Cartwright

(1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In Cartwright

Zander

(Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91–109). Harper & Row.

14.

Cheng

M. I.

Dainty

A. R.

Moore

D. R.

(2005). Towards a multidimensional competency-based managerial performance framework. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(5), 380–396.

15.

Choi

J. J.

(1991). The antecedent and effectiveness of group cohesiveness [Master’s thesis]. Seoul National University.

16.

Christakis

N. A.

Fowler

J. H.

(2009). The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. Little, Brown.

17.

Dubois

D. D.

(1998). The competency case book. HRD Press.

18.

Dutton

J. E.

Dukerich

J. M.

Harquail

C. V.

(1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.

19.

Etzioni

(1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power, involvement and their correlates. Free Press.

20.

Forsman

Jansson

Leksell

Lepp

Sundin-Andersson

Engström

Nilsson

(2020). Clusters of competence: Relationship between self-reported professional competence and achievement on a national examination among graduating nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(1), 199–208.

21.

Guenter

Emmerik

Schreurs

Kuypers

Iterson

Notelaers

(2016). When task conflict becomes personal: The impact of perceived team performance. Small Group Research, 47(5), 569–604.

22.

Gully

S. M.

Devine

D. J.

Whitney

D. J.

(1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.

23.

Hartje

J. A.

Evans

W. P.

Killian

E. S.

Brown

(2008). Youth worker characteristics and self-reported competency as predictors of intent to continue working with youth. Child and Youth Care Forum, 37, 27–41.

24.

Hirschi

Stark

(1969). Hellfire and delinquency. Social Problems, 17(2), 202–213.

25.

Jehn

K. A.

Chadwick

Thatcher

S. M. B.

(1993). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 287–305.

26.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

(2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—Self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—With job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.

27.

Klein

H. J.

Mulvey

P. W.

(1995). Two investigations of the relationships among group goals, goal commitment, cohesion, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 44–53.

28.

Kristof

A. L.

(1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.

29.

Kurz

Bartram

(2002). Competency and individual performance: Modelling the world of work. In Robertson

I. T.

Callinan

Bartram

(Eds.), Organizational effectiveness: The role of psychology (pp. 227–258). John Wiley.

30.

Langfred

(1998). Is group cohesiveness a double edged sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on performance. Small Group Research, 29, 124–143.

31.

Lewin

(1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin Cartwright.). Harpers & Brothers.

32.

P. P.

(2007). Social tie, social capital, and social behavior: Toward an integrative model of informal exchange. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(2), 227–246.

33.

Lievens

Sanchez

Corte

W. D.

(2004). Easing the inferential leap in competency modeling: The effects of task-related information and subject matter expertise. Personnel Psychology, 57, 881–904.

34.

Mansfield

(1999). What is “competence” all about? Competency, 6(3), 24–28.

35.

Mansfield

R. S.

(1996). Building competency models: Approaches for HR professionals. Human Resource Management, 35(1), 7–18.

36.

McClelland

D. C.

(1973). Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 28, 1–14.

37.

McFarland

Buehler

(1995). Collective self-esteem as a moderator of the frog-pond effect in reactions to performance feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1055–1070.

38.

T. W.

Sorensen

K. L.

Eby

L. T.

(2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057–1087.

39.

Organ

D. W.

Ryan

(1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802.

40.

Özçelik

Ferman

(2006). Competency approach to human resource management: Outcome and contributions in a Turkish cultural context. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 72–91.

41.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

42.

Price

J. L.

Muller

C. W.

(1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Pitman.

43.

Randall

D. M.

(1987). Commitment and the organization: The organization man revisited. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 460–471.

44.

Rodriguez

Patel

Bright

Gregory

Gowing

M. K.

(2002). Developing competency models to promote integrated human resource practices. Human Resource Management, 41, 309–324.

45.

Schachter

(1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

46.

Schachter

Ellertson

McBride

Gregory

(1951). An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4(4), 299–338.

47.

Schneider

(1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.

48.

Shah

S. I.

Shahjehan

Afsar

Afridi

S. A.

Saeed

B. B.

(2020). The dynamics of leader technical competence, subordinate learning, and innovative work behaviors in high-tech, knowledge-based industry. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1), 623–638.

49.

Shaw

M. E.

(1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. McGraw-Hill.

50.

Stogdill

R. M.

(1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 8(1), 26–43.

51.

Tang

W. F.

Feng

(1996). Labor relations in Chinese enterprises. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 85–103.

52.

Tesser

Millar

Moore

(1988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 49–61.

53.

Turner

J. C.

(1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In Tajfel

(Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge University Press.

54.

Turner

J. C.

Hogg

M. A.

Oakes

P. J.

Reicher

S. D.

Wetherell

M. S.

(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell.

55.

Tziner

Vardi

(1982). Effects of command style and cohesiveness on the performance effectiveness of self-selected tank crews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 769–775.

56.

Wang

Z. M.

Chen

M. K.

(2001). A hierarchical analysis for managerial competence in Chinese enterprises. Forum of International Development Studies.

57.

Wech

B. A.

Mossholder

K. W.

Steel

R. P.

Bennet

(1998). Does work group cohesiveness affect individuals’ performance and organizational commitment? A cross-level examination. Small Group Research, 29(4), 472–494.

58.

Wheeler

Miyake

(1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 760–773.

59.

Woodman

R. W.

Sawyer

J. E.

Griffn

R. W.

(1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

60.

Zander

(1979). The psychology of group processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 417–451.

Does a Competent Member Always Obtain Good Results? The Social Identity Perspective

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theory, Literature Review, and Hypothesis

Competency as an Antecedent of Performance

Moderating Factor in Competency–Performance Relationship

Method

Sample and Procedure

Measures

Competency

Perceived team performance

Group cohesiveness

Individual performance

Control variables

Results

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Managerial Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References