Article Sidebar

Download PDF
Published: Mar 6, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.13006
Issue: Vol. 52 No. 3 (2024)
Keywords:
team efficacy, burnout, team trust, creative performance, feeling of accomplishment, collective-self concept, social comparison apprehension

Team efficacy, feeling of reduced personal accomplishment, and individual creative performance: Team trust as a moderator

Main Article Content

Jung Rak Choi

College of Business Administration, Seoul National University

Sangyun Kim

Department of Business Administration, University of Zurich

Won-Woo Park

College of Business Administration, Seoul National University
Cite this article:  Choi, J. R., Kim, S., & Park, W.-W. (2024). Team efficacy, feeling of reduced personal accomplishment, and individual creative performance: Team trust as a moderator. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 52(3), e13006.


Abstract
Full Text
References
Tables and Figures
Acknowledgments
Author Contact

We studied the interaction of team efficacy and team trust on feeling of reduced personal accomplishment. Data were obtained from a survey conducted with 270 teams made up of 1,787 individual employees of a multinational shipbuilding corporation headquartered in South Korea. We found that when team trust was low, team efficacy was positively related to individual burnout, whereas the relationship was nonsignificant when team trust was high. The feeling of reduced personal accomplishment, was, in turn, negatively related to individual creative performance. Contrary to common intuition about the positive effects of team efficacy, the results suggest that high team efficacy can lead to increased burnout and, ultimately, have a negative impact on creativity under conditions of low team trust. In the process, we also discussed the relative salience of the team as an extension of the self.

Article Highlights

  • Team efficacy can serve as a major source of information that is used for social comparison at work.
  • Trust toward the team as a collective entity can extend group members’ concept of self; when there is a low level of trust, each member in the team perceives other team members as “you” not “we.”
  • When team trust is low, individual members with high team efficacy come to view their efficacious teammates as a potential threat in internal competition or intrateam comparison; as a result, burnout increases, hindering creative performance.

Team-based work is becoming increasingly important, with aspects of the team and team-based variables receiving much academic attention. Team efficacy indicates a group’s conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment (Bandura, 1997). Generally, it has been assumed that team efficacy improves various organizational outcomes (Gibson, 2001; Gibson et al., 2000; Gully et al., 2002) and high team efficacy is thought to be almost always positive (Gully et al., 2002). However, using social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), we proposed that the effect of high team efficacy could be negative if individuals perceive high efficacy of teammates who are dormant competitors, because they may be viewed as a potential threat in internal competition.

We posited that when individual identity is much more salient than group identity because of a lack of team trust, high team efficacy would lead to negative psychological results for the focal individual, such as burnout, because of the increased saliency of interpersonal competition and social comparison apprehension. We also expected that the burnout derived from comparison apprehension would have a negative impact on the creative performance of the individual employee because of diminished cognitive resource efficiency.

The psychology of employees is frequently neglected in designing the work environment, which derives from a lack of fine understanding of the subtle and sophisticated dynamics of the internal cognitive processes of employees. With this study, we aimed to shed light on the internal mental processes that individual employees experience at work.

Social Comparison

People engage in self-evaluation for diverse reasons. Often, they are motivated to verify their status so that they have a stable sense of who they are and what they are capable of doing (Swann et al., 1992). When people evaluate their own abilities or attitudes, they do so in large part by comparing themselves to others. Festinger (1954) developed social comparison theory to account for the ubiquity of such comparisons. Social comparisons are common, and research inspired by social comparison theory has shown that they have important consequences in affecting the way people evaluate themselves (Suls et al., 2000). Stress is one result that derives from social comparison. As Fiske (2010) said, “comparison stresses, depresses, and divides” people (p. 698). According to Buunk and Ybema (1997), social comparison stress often arises in organizational settings as well as in individual situations.

However, what and how does an employee compare in the organization? To conduct social comparison, one should, at least subconsciously, specify self, other, and the relative value of the self and the other. Thus, to answer this question, it is necessary to conduct an examination of how an employee distinguishes the self from others, and of how individuals estimate the relative value of the self and of others.

Team Efficacy as a Social Comparison Component

In the organizational context, team efficacy has shown a positive relationship with group problem solving (Kline & MacLeod, 1997), group learning (Edmondson, 1999), and performance in various settings (Gibson, 1999; Gibson et al., 2000; Little & Madigan, 1997). We proposed that team efficacy would serve as a major source of information that is used for social comparison at work. Team efficacy is an indicator of an employee’s perception of their team members’ general work-related capability. According to selective attention theory (Simons & Chabris, 1999), people cannot focus on everything at once, and in a given situation they are able to allocate their attention to only the most important elements. In the situation of the workplace, the ability to perform tasks is probably the most important and relevant element. If this is the case, when comparing the self with others in organizational settings, people might use only the particular information that indicates performance-related capability. In addition, in this situation team members are arguably the most salient and direct reference target for comparison. In this light, we assumed that team efficacy would be a good candidate for a source of social comparison information, especially at work.

Team Trust and Team Identity

Trust is defined as the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (Mayer et al., 1995), and team trust refers to employees’ trust in their teammates as a collective entity. De Cremer et al. (2006) and Voci (2006) showed that trust and identity concepts, such as the process of forming identity, are closely related. Shared group membership evoked by trust (Williams, 2001) reduces the psychological distance among team members, and when team trust is high, individual members experience the team interests as self-interests. In other words, members who perceive high team trust tend to categorize themselves as being in the same social entity with their teammates.

This categorization depersonalizes the members who perceive high team trust, and means that group-level standards (norms and interests) and intergroup interactions become more salient for them than are idiosyncratic personal standards and individual interactions (Kramer, 1999). Trust enhances the level of interpersonal interactions in which team members are willing to share their insights and interests, and they feel safe when others challenge them (Holton, 2001). As a result of the interpersonal or relational nature of the construct, members’ concept of relational self in the team is closely connected to trust (Narayan & Steele-Johnson, 2012). In this light, trust toward the team as a collective entity can extend the self-concept of its members. An extended self means that the boundaries confining the self are redrawn to include others (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). We proposed that high team trust would blur the boundaries between the self and other team members, and would work as a catalyst to form an extended self, or collective-self concept.

When the collective-self concept is in effect, perception of within-group similarities is emphasized to a greater extent than are individual heterogeneity and distinctions (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Thus, we expected that when individual team members conduct social comparison to evaluate themselves, those who experience high (vs. low) team trust would be more likely to use intergroup comparison based on a collective-self concept than they would be to use intragroup–interpersonal comparison.

As explained above, group efficacy is an index of team members’ general work-related capability. When the concept of the individual self is salient, team efficacy, which conveys team members’ value, serves as an index for the individual that indicates the ability of others. In contrast, when high team trust extends self-concept and shapes the concept of a collective self in the team members’ minds, team efficacy can represent the ability level of the (collective) self, because of the saliency of intergroup comparison over interpersonal comparison. In an experiment conducted by Brewer and Weber (1994), exposure to the same social comparison information had very different effects depending on the individual members’ relationship to the group and their focus on personal versus social identity. When the social category was not distinctive, individuals were oriented toward intragroup–interpersonal social comparison, exhibiting lowered self-esteem after meeting high-performing in-group members. Contrarily, when the collective identity was distinctive, individuals were oriented toward intergroup social comparison, exhibiting an increased level of self-esteem after meeting high-performing in-group members. In a similar vein, we proposed that team efficacy would be quite differently construed by employees depending on the level of team trust they are experiencing.

Burnout From Negative Social Comparison

Social comparison apprehension frequently leads to strain at work (Buunk & Ybema, 1997). Taking into account the potential role of team efficacy in the social comparison that occurs within an employee’s mind, we posited that team efficacy would be related to the degree of burnout the employee experiences. In particular, we focused on the feeling of reduced personal accomplishment as a dimension of the burnout construct, because it specifically addresses people’s perception of self-capability, which is largely based on social comparison.

Maslach (1982) categorized burnout as a strain that includes a feeling that one’s emotional resources are depleted (emotional exhaustion), including experiencing disengagement or cynicism (depersonalization), and the notion that one is not good at one’s job (feeling of reduced personal accomplishment). According to Maslach (1982, 1993), employees can feel stressed owing to various factors, but one of the salient cases is when they feel they are not competent at work. In other words, employees are likely to be burnt out when they perceive themselves as inefficacious. This is the core factor in the concept of burnout from the feeling of reduced personal accomplishment. As stated above, we postulated that team efficacy would be related to the level of burnout, especially in the feeling of reduced personal accomplishment category, because of its potential role in the social comparison that an employee performs. However, we expected that the particular effect of team efficacy on feeling of reduced personal accomplishment burnout would be considerably moderated by the level of team trust.

Joint Effects of Team Trust and Team Efficacy on Feeling of Reduced Personal Accomplishment

The above discussion on team trust and an extended self implies that if each member has strong trust in their team, their self-concept can encompass others in the same group in addition to themself. In that case, team efficacy can indicate the ability of the collective self rather than being simply the ability of others. Conversely, when team trust is low, we expected that, by and large, team efficacy would signify the ability level of others. In sum, we proposed that social comparison would affect individual burnout, and team trust and team efficacy would jointly shape specific features of the social-comparison frame the individual used. Thus, we now discuss specific predictions.

Low Team Trust

With a low level of trust among team members, each member is expected to perceive other team members not as “we” but as “you.” Thus, individual-self concept becomes salient. In this situation, individuals in a group with high team efficacy come to view their efficacious teammates as a potential threat in internal competition or intrateam comparison. In other words, they become more susceptible to social comparison apprehension. People experience stress when they perceive that they are not doing well compared to surrounding others (Crosby, 1976; Walker & Pettigrew, 1984). The intrateam comparison threat that efficacious teammates pose constitutes a very representative example of such negative comparisons. In this light, we expected that employees with low team trust would show a positive relationship between team efficacy and the feeling of reduced personal accomplishment.

High Team Trust

In a high-team-trust condition, employees put themselves and their teammates in the same category. That is, collective-self concept is likely to develop. Once the group is perceived as a unit that bears the concept of a collective self, team members think of team efficacy as a collective-self ability index. In this situation high team efficacy evokes in individual team members a desirable perception of the capability of the self. Thus, with high team trust, individual team members are likely to make positive social comparisons because they form a desirable self-image derived from capable in-group members or an extended self. Hence, we expected that there would be a negative relationship between team efficacy and the feeling of reduced personal accomplishment among employees with high team trust.
Hypothesis 1: Team trust will moderate the relationship between team efficacy and the feeling of reduced personal accomplishment, such that the relationship will be positive under the condition of low team trust and will be negative under the condition of high team trust.

Effects of Burnout on Creative Performance

One of the most commonly noted negative consequences of burnout is a reduction in task performance (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004; Maslach, 1982). However, the results of prior studies on the relationship between dimensions of burnout and job performance have been inconsistent (Bakker et al., 2004; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). Tapping into this issue, in their study using the theory of conservation of resources (Hobfoll, 1988), Halbesleben and Bowler (2007) indicated that the lack of careful consideration about theories of performance is a main pitfall, pointing out that the reduction in resource efficiency resulting from burnout might be a major cause of diminished performance. Moreover, burnout creates a sense of depersonalization and a feeling of lack of personal accomplishment, which, as a result, badly damages the capabilities of employees to think about new ideas or come up with novel solutions (Spence Laschinger & Fida, 2014; Zainab et al., 2020). Abbas and Raja (2015) also described job stress as a factor that is detrimental to creative performance. Thus, we suggested that cognitive resource inefficiency would serve as a primary factor leading to a deterioration in performance under the condition of burnout, and that the effect of this inefficiency would manifest most clearly in a domain that requires extensive investment of cognitive resources, that is, creative performance.
Hypothesis 2: The feeling of reduced personal accomplishment derived from the joint effects of team trust and team efficacy will be negatively related to individual creative performance, such that the feeling of reduced personal accomplishment will mediate the joint effect of team efficacy and team trust on creative performance.
 
If this is the case, building a team with very efficacious employees might not automatically lead to a positive outcome. Rather, it is possible that a team composed of very efficacious individuals may do a poor job, especially with tasks that require creativity, if the importance of forming trust and collective bonding is neglected. Figure 1 depicts the hypotheses we formed regarding the relationships among team efficacy, team trust, feeling of reduced personal accomplishment, and creative performance.
 

Table/Figure

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Method

Participants and Procedure

The data were collected from employees of a multinational shipbuilding corporation headquartered in South Korea, using an email-based online survey. To reduce the possibility of common method bias, the employees completed the survey measures in two parts, with a month between the two collection times. The surveys were distributed to 3,785 employees at Time 1 and 3,030 of the forms were returned (response rate = 80.05%). The final sample we used for the main analysis was reduced to 1,787 individuals in 270 teams because of matching loss from Time 1 to Time 2. The average age of the employees was 32.48 years (SD = 5.83, range = 18–60), and 2,727 (90%) were men and 303 (10%) women. The mean job tenure was 54 months (SD = 44.86, range = 1–366).

Measures

Three people (including the third author), each with a doctorate in business administration, divided the survey into three parts, and each translated a part into Korean. They then retranslated the sentences that they had not translated (i.e., those translated into Korean by others) into English to examine the similarity to the original items. To verify the validity of the translated measures, the factor structure of each variable was checked with confirmatory factor analysis. The results revealed the same factor structures as the original measures had suggested for all variables. The employees themselves responded to all measures on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
 

Team Trust

Trust in the team was assessed using six items adapted from Robinson and Rousseau (1994). We replaced the word “employer” in their items with the term “team members.” A sample item is “My team members are open and upfront with me.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .96.
 

Team Efficacy

Team efficacy was measured using seven items from Riggs and Knight (1994). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) was .20, which is not very satisfactory; however, it was statistically significant at the .01 level. Thus, we aggregated individual responses to the team level by averaging item scores. A sample item is “Team members I work with have above-average ability.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .88.
 
 

Feeling of Reduced Personal Accomplishment

The feeling of reduced personal accomplishment was measured with eight items from Maslach and Jackson (1981). High scores indicate low burnout. A sample item is “I feel I’m positively influencing other people’s lives through my work” (coded in reverse). Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .87.
 

Creative Performance

Individual creative performance was measured with nine items from Janssen (2000). A sample item is “I search out new working methods, techniques, or instruments.” Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .95.
 

Control Variables

We controlled for task interdependence (three items from Campion et al., 1993; α = .70) because this is a factor that can adjust the mental boundary of self and others at work. High task interdependence makes it difficult for workers to discern the contribution and capabilities of others from those of the self, and induces them to form a more collective identity with their team members. A sample item is “I cannot accomplish my tasks without information or materials from other members of my team.” Job satisfaction (six items from Price & Mueller, 1981; α = .94) was also controlled for to deal with the possible influence of individual work attitudes. A sample item is “I find real enjoyment in my job.” In addition, we controlled for age, gender, and job tenure.

Data Analysis

Although the hypotheses were essentially individual-level perception-based propositions, each participant was under the condition of considerable dependency within the team. Thus, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to address the multilevel structure of the data. More specifically, team efficacy was assumed to be a Level 2 construct, denoting a group-level context for an individual experience, and team trust was viewed as a Level 1 construct, since trust is essentially based on a dyadic relationship that individuals each form with their team as an entity. In this regard, each member can show different trust attitudes toward the same team. To confirm the HLM precondition, variance compositions of feeling of reduced personal accomplishment and creative performance were examined. There was a significant amount of between-group variance for feeling of reduced personal accomplishment (.04, p < .001, χ2 = 396.79, df = 269) and creative performance (.05, p < .001, χ2 = 403.15, df = 269). ICC for feeling of reduced personal accomplishment was .07 and that for creative performance was .06. In other words, roughly 7% (feeling of reduced personal accomplishment) and 6% (creative performance) of the total variance was significantly attributable to differences between teams. With these results, we proceeded to conduct an HLM analysis; further, because the between-group variance size was relatively small, we ran an ordinary least squares single-level analysis as well.

Results

Hypothesis Testing

Table 1 contains descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the study variables. Table 2 presents the results from restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Apart from gender, variables were grand-mean-centered. In Model 1, the cross-level interaction term of team efficacy and team trust was significantly related to feeling of reduced personal accomplishment (the result was identical even when two other burnout dimensions of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were included as control variables in Model 2). Figure 2 shows that high team efficacy was associated with feelings of reduced personal accomplishment in conditions of low team trust, but this relationship was not significant among participants who experienced high levels of team trust (see Table 3). Hypothesis 1, in which we suggested that team trust would moderate the relationship between team efficacy and feeling of reduced personal accomplishment, was supported by the results in Models 1 and 2.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Study Variables

Table/Figure
Note. N = 3,030. Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimates are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. Means, standard deviations, and reliability estimates are reported at the individual level.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 2. Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results

Table/Figure
Note. Entries are regression coefficients and standard errors are shown in parentheses. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used; R2 was computed as the proportional reduction in the unexplained variance from the empty model; results from robust standard errors were identical.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Next, we examined whether the feeling of reduced personal accomplishment mediated the relationship between the joint effect of team efficacy and team trust on creative performance. The result of the bootstrapping analysis (Edwards & Lambert, 2007) indicated that the moderated mediation effect of feeling of reduced personal accomplishment (see Table 3) was significant, but only when team trust was low. In the first stage, the effect of team efficacy differed according to level of team trust, and in the second stage, the relationship between feeling of reduced personal accomplishment and creative performance was significant. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported. As shown in Table 4, the ordinary least squares analysis results were largely identical to those from the HLM analysis.

Table 3. Bootstrapping Analysis Results: Indirect Effect of Team Efficacy on Creative Performance via Feeling of Reduced Personal Accomplishment as Moderated by Team Trust

Table/Figure
Note. Bootstrapping analysis was conducted with 1,000 iterations. TE = team efficacy; RPA = feeling of reduced personal accomplishment; CP = creative performance; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
** p < .01.

Table 4. Single-Level Ordinary Least Squares Analysis Results

Table/Figure

Note. Standard errors are shown in parentheses. RPA = feeling of reduced personal accomplishment.

Table/Figure
Figure 2. Interaction Effect of Team Efficacy and Team Trust on the Feeling of Reduced Personal Accomplishment

Discussion


In this study we tested the hypotheses based on a social comparison and collective-self concept framework with two-level data. The results suggest that the degree of team trust can alter an individual’s psychological response under the same team efficacy condition. Despite the common intuition, we found that high team efficacy is not always a good thing to have in regard to the feelings of personal accomplishment and creative performance of individual group members. In fact, when there is low trust in the team, we found that high team efficacy is related to intensification of burnout. This could be interpreted as resulting from an increased apprehension about intragroup–interpersonal social comparison. Taking into account the motivation for maintaining a positive self-evaluation (Tesser, 1988), the situation of being surrounded by competent colleagues in the workplace is undesirable, which is also related to one of the most common evaluation errors: the contrast effect. As we found in our study, social comparison with a group of talented peers can have a negative impact on performance, and this is related to the logic used to explain the negative relationship between performance and too little or too much team efficacy (Park et al., 2017).

We suggest that the pattern occurring in the condition of high team trust, which differed from that in the low-trust condition, is generated by differences in self-concept that employees develop under these two conditions. According to Langfred (2004), low trust will generally be associated with higher monitoring by team members of other members’ activities, and high trust will be associated with lower monitoring. The more trustworthy employees are perceived to be, the less the supervisor and team members will monitor activities of others in the team (Creed & Miles, 1996), and the less trust in the employees there is in an organization, the more managers feel they must monitor them (Bromiley & Cummings, 1995). If this logic is applied to the dynamics within the team—in our study, specifically, to the team where there was high trust—this might have stimulated a distinctive in-group perception and induced the individuals in that team to form a collective-self concept, and the derived collective-self concept might then have enabled the individual team members to interpret team efficacy as an indicator of the capability of the collective self. Team members have sufficient trust in their colleagues that they do not need to monitor the performance of other members of their team.

We found a negative impact of team efficacy on feelings of personal accomplishment under conditions of low team trust, but high team efficacy did not alleviate the feeling of reduced personal accomplishment even when team trust was high. This result reinforces prospect theory; that is, positive evaluations or attitudes tend to be transient, whereas negative ones leave bigger and more long-lasting impacts on people’s minds. In their seminal work on prospect theory, Kahneman and Tversky (1979) revealed that the value of loss may be greater than the value of gain. In the relationship between team efficacy and feelings of personal accomplishment, the negative value of low team trust can overwhelm the positive value provided by high trust. This explains why the effect of low team efficacy on the feeling of reduced personal accomplishment is more pronounced than that of high team efficacy.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are several limitations in this study. First, we used self-report measures for all key variables. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the common method variance amounted to 26% of the total variance. Even though the amounts are not distant from the average of published studies (e.g., Perry et al., 2010), and the variables needed to be measured via self-report for theoretical reasons, we concede that there is still a high possibility of common method variance that may have biased the results. In a meta-analysis of creative performance, Said-Metwaly et al. (2020) found that neither measurement tools nor scoring methods had an effect as moderators. This result might be attributed to the small number of studies they included in the meta-analysis, but it can be seen as a kind of complementary logic to the limitations of the method we used to measure creative performance in this study.

Second, we obtained all data from shipbuilding company employees who were working in locations in South Korea. Considering the cultural influence, we strongly recommend replications in other countries. According to Brewer and Yuki (2007), studies on social identity and trust have yielded results that support the conventional wisdom that trust is strongly formed in collectivist cultures, and the opposite result has also been reported, with support found for strong trust formation in individualistic cultures, too. This difference might be explained by recognizing the difference between relationship-based and category-based in-groups. East Asians may have different levels of trust and social identity in their in-group depending on the existence of norms and systems within their organization (Yamagishi, 1988a, 1988b; Yamagishi et al., 1998). The findings of this study, in which team trust has been found to regulate the relationship between team efficacy and a feeling of reduced personal accomplishment, are fundamentally influenced by cultural context. Therefore, it will be necessary to test similar research models in other cultures in the future.

Conclusion

The present findings suggest that efficacy alone is not enough to meet the conditions for employees to work positively as a team. Other situational factors, such as team trust, need to be considered. When there is a lack of trust among members of a highly efficacious team, the long-term outcome can be very negative. Although it is possible that high performance of routine tasks is maintained, heightened burnout resulting from comparison apprehension can eventually lead to backlash in the form of diminished creative performance of team members. As described in the literature, in addition to creativity, burnout itself can be very detrimental in various ways. In this regard, it is necessary to pay serious attention to possible negative impacts from an imbalance of trust and efficacy in teams. When managers focus on efficacy of teams out of serious concern about performance, to achieve long-term success based on strong commitment of employees, they should try to foster team trust alongside efficacy.

Abbas, M., & Raja, U. (2015). Impact of psychological capital on innovative performance and job stress. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences l’Administration, 32(2), 128–138.
 
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands‐resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 83–104.
 
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.  W. H. Freeman.
 
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.
 
Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 268–275.
 
Brewer, M. B., & Yuki, M. (2007). Culture and social identity. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 307– 322). The Guilford Press.
 
Bromiley, P., & Cummings, L. L. (1995). Transactions costs in organizations with trust. In R. Bies, B. Sheppard, & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 219–247). JAI Press.
 
Buunk, B. P., & Ybema, J. F. (1997). Social comparisons and occupational stress: The identification-contrast model. In B. P. Buunk, F. X. Gibbons, & A. Buunk (Eds.), Health, coping, and well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 359–388). Psychology Press.
 
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–850.
 
Creed, W. E. D., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of control. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 16–39). Sage Publications.
 
Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83(2), 85–113.
 
De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. R. (2006). Leader’s procedural justice affecting identification and trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(7), 554–565.
 
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
 
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.
 
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
 
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Envy up, scorn down: How comparison divides us. American Psychologist, 65(8), 698–706.
 
Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 138–152.
 
Gibson, C. B. (2001). Me and us: Differential relationships among goal‐setting training, efficacy and effectiveness at the individual and team level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 789–808.
 
Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group & Organization Management, 25(1), 67–97.
 
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (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(5), 819–832.
 
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93–106.
 
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management, 30(6), 859–879.
 
Hobfoll, S. E. (1988). The ecology of stress. Hemisphere Publishing.
 
Holton, J. A. (2001). Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team. Team Performance Management, 7(3/4), 36–47.
 
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.
 
Kahneman, K., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
 
Kline, T. J. B., & MacLeod, M. (1997). Predicting organizational team performance. Organization Development Journal, 15(4), 77–84.
 
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
 
Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385–399.
 
Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885–900.
 
Little, B. L., & Madigan, R. M. (1997). The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group Research, 28(4), 517–534.
 
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. ISHK.
 
Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 19–32). Taylor & Francis.
 
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113.
 
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
 
Narayan, A., & Steele-Johnson, D. (2012). Individual and relational self-concepts in a team context: Effects on task perceptions, trust, intrinsic motivation, and satisfaction. Team Performance Management, 18(5/6), 236–255.
 
Park, W.-W., Kim, M. S., & Gully, S. M. (2017). Effect of cohesion on the curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and performance. Small Group Research, 48(4), 455–481.
 
Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Atwater, L. (2010). The downside of goal-focused leadership: The role of personality in subordinate exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1145–1153.
 
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), 543–565.
 
Riggs, M. L., & Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 755–766.
 
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245–259.
 
Said-Metwaly, S., Fernández-Castilla, B., Kyndt, E., & Van den Noortgate, W. (2020). Testing conditions and creative performance: Meta-analyses of the impact of time limits and instructions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 15–38.
 
Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical analysis. CRC Press.
 
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychology Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.
 
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059–1074.
 
Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Fida, R. (2014). New nurses burnout and workplace wellbeing: The influence of authentic leadership and psychological capital. Burnout Research, 1, 19–28.
 
Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2000). Three kinds of opinion comparison: The triadic model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 219–237.
 
Swann, W. B., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, R. B. (1992). Why people self-verify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 392–401.
 
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181–228.
 
Voci, A. (2006). The link between identification and in‐group favouritism: Effects of threat to social identity and trust‐related emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 265–284.
 
Walker, I., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1984). Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 301–310.
 
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 377–396.
 
Yamagishi, T. (1988a). Exit from the group as an individualistic solution to the free rider problem in the United States and Japan. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(6), 530–542.
 
Yamagishi, T. (1988b). The provision of a sanctioning system in the United States and Japan. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(3), 265–271.
 
Yamagishi, T., Jin, N., & Miller, A. S. (1998). In-group bias and culture of collectivism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1(3), 315–328.
 
Zainab, B., Akbar, W., & Thuy Van, J. N. (2020). Effects of burnout on employee creative performance and counterproductive work behavior: Does psychological capital matter? Paradigms, 14(1), 39–45.

Table/Figure

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework


Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Study Variables

Table/Figure
Note. N = 3,030. Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimates are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. Means, standard deviations, and reliability estimates are reported at the individual level.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 2. Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results

Table/Figure
Note. Entries are regression coefficients and standard errors are shown in parentheses. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used; R2 was computed as the proportional reduction in the unexplained variance from the empty model; results from robust standard errors were identical.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 3. Bootstrapping Analysis Results: Indirect Effect of Team Efficacy on Creative Performance via Feeling of Reduced Personal Accomplishment as Moderated by Team Trust

Table/Figure
Note. Bootstrapping analysis was conducted with 1,000 iterations. TE = team efficacy; RPA = feeling of reduced personal accomplishment; CP = creative performance; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
** p < .01.

Table 4. Single-Level Ordinary Least Squares Analysis Results

Table/Figure

Note. Standard errors are shown in parentheses. RPA = feeling of reduced personal accomplishment.


Table/Figure
Figure 2. Interaction Effect of Team Efficacy and Team Trust on the Feeling of Reduced Personal Accomplishment

This research was partially supported by a grant to the third author from the Institute of Management Research at Seoul National University.

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Jung Rak Choi, College of Business Administration, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. Email: [email protected]

Article Details

© 2024 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.