Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.82.5.258-266
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Team Conflict Self-Efficacy and Outcome
Expectancy of Business Students
Robert W. Stone & Jeffrey J. Bailey
To cite this article: Robert W. Stone & Jeffrey J. Bailey (2007) Team Conflict Self-Efficacy and
Outcome Expectancy of Business Students, Journal of Education for Business, 82:5, 258-266,
DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.82.5.258-266
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.5.258-266
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 79
View related articles
Citing articles: 11 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:27
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
TeamConflictSelf-EfficacyandOutcome
ExpectancyofBusinessStudents
ROBERTW.STONE
JEFFREYJ.BAILEY
UNIVERSITYOFIDAHO
MOSCOW,IDAHO
ABSTRACT.Onthebasisofaselfefficacyframework,theauthorspresent
ABSTRACT.
atheoreticallysoundmodelexplaining
thebehavioralintentionsofstudentsto
applyteamworkskillstheylearninbusinesscourses.Themodellinksvariablesat
leastpartiallycontrollablebyfacultyina
classroomsettingtostudents’behavioral
intentionstouseteamworkskills.The
authorsempiricallytestedthetheoretical
model.Theresultsshowthatvicarious
teamexperienceandteammembersupport
significantlyaffectedteamconflictself-efficacy.Teamconflictself-efficacyinfluenced
careeroutcomeexpectancyandcurrent
teamoutcomeexpectancy.Bothoutcome
expectanciesaffectedbehavioralintentions
touseteamskillsinasignificantway.The
authorsalsodiscussedthepedagogical
implicationsoftheresults.
Keywords:self-efficacy,teams,teamoutcomeexpectancies
Copyright©2007HeldrefPublications
258
JournalofEducationforBusiness
T
eaching business students to be
effective team members should be
atoppriority.Theworkofbusinessprofessionalsisincreasinglydoneinateam
environment (Cohen & Bailey, 1997;
Gibson, Randel, & Earley, 2000; Jones,
2004;Sundstrom,1999).Eightypercent
of companies with over 100 employees
useteamstocompletetheirwork(Cohen
& Bailey). By necessity, business students need exposure to the skills and
experiencesofworkinginteams.
It is fortunate that business education in colleges around the world now
entailswidespreaduseofstudentteams.
Inrecentyears,academicjournalshave
published many articles dealing with
student-team effectiveness. However,
there is still more that people can do
to improve. A number of researchers
haveindicatedthatmorecanbedoneto
explicitly develop teamwork skills and
abilities in our students (Buckenmyer,
2001; Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski,
2004; Gardner & Korth, 1999; McKendall, 2000; Page & Donelan, 2003).
One of many such teamwork skills is
the ability to resolve conflict within a
team (Burn, 2003; Ilgen, 1999; Tjosvold,1991).Grouporteamself-efficacy
is an important process that influences
teameffectiveness(Gibsonetal.,2003).
Inthisstudy,wefocusedonteamconflictself-efficacy.
Our purpose in this study was to
develop and test a theoretically sound
modellinkingvariablescontrollableby
faculty in a classroom setting to stu-
dents’behavioralintentionstouseteam
conflictresolutionskillstheydeveloped
in their classes. We demonstrated the
relation between students’ behavioral
intentions to use the skills and faculty controllable variables mediated by
teamconflictself-efficacyandoutcome
expectancy. The concept of team conflict self-efficacy is useful for understanding how different approaches to
conflict resolution are associated with
team effectiveness (Alper, Tjosvold,
& Law, 2000; Campion, Medsker, &
Higgs,1993).
HypothesesandLiterature
Review
Atheoreticalfoundationofproviding
students with teamwork experiences is
self-efficacy theory (SET). The theory
explainsemployeereactionstoworking
in teams and managing conflict within
the team (Bandura, 1986; Baronas &
Louis,1988;Martinko,Henry,&Zmud,
1996;Meier,1985).Self-efficacytheorysuggeststhatexpectationsaremajor
factorsdeterminingaffectiveandbehavioral reactions in numerous situations
(e.g., motivation, performance, and
feelings of frustration associated with
repeatedfailure).Bandura(1986)separatedexpectationsintoself-efficacyand
outcome expectancy. In general, selfefficacyisthebeliefthatonepossesses
the skills and abilities to successfully
accomplishaspecifictask.Self-efficacy
influencespeople’spersistencetolearn
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
a task and affects their perceptions of
future outcomes. Outcome expectancy
is the belief that accomplishing a task
results in the attainment of a desired
outcome.
Bandura (1977, 1982) proposed
fourgroupsofvariablesorexperiences
that affect an individual’s self-efficacy
beliefsconcerningaparticulartask.The
first and strongest is the individual’s
personal mastery or accomplishments
regardingthetask.Priorsuccessesperforming the task increase self-efficacy
regarding the task. Repeated failures
when performing the task lower these
expectations (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
For example, in the context of team
activities, successful experiences dealingwithconflictordisagreementpresent on the team should be associated
with higher team conflict self-efficacy.
Thisledtoourfirsthypothesis.
Hypothesis1(H1):Thelevelofteamconflictexperiencehasasignificantandpositiveimpactonteamconflictself-efficacy.
Bandura’s second group of variables
is vicarious experiences, or modeling
thebehaviorofotherswhosuccessfully
complete the task. Through observing
others successfully complete the task,
the observers can improve their own
performance (Bandura, 1977; Gist &
Mitchell,1992).Forthisstudy,wecan
view vicarious experience as listening
to and watching other teams resolve
conflictontheirteams.
Hypothesis2(H2):Thelevelofvicarious
team experience has a significant and
positive impact on team conflict selfefficacy.
Socialpersuasionisthelabelplaced
onthethirdgroupofvariables.Social
persuasionoccurswhensomeonetells
the individuals that they can successfully complete the task in question.
Common forms of social persuasion
are verbal encouragement, coaching,
and providing performance feedback
(Bandura, 1977). In this study, we
used encouragement and help from a
facultymemberwhomentorstheteam
astheformsofsocialpersuasion.We
considered the support and concern
teammembersprovidedeachotheras
they resolved conflicts and disagreements as one of the variables in the
category.
ond outcome expectancy was students’
perceptions that the skills would favorablyinfluencetheirperformanceontheir
currentteam.Wehypothesizedbothoutcome expectancies to positively affect
students’ behavioral intentions to use
the team skills they had developed. We
derivedthefollowinghypothesesgenerallyfromself-efficacytheoryonthebasis
ofthetheory’stenetsrelatingtooutcome
expectancyandbehavioralintentions.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): The influence of a
teammentorhasasignificantandpositive
impactonteamconflictself-efficacy.
The last group of antecedents to
self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
is physiological arousal and emotional
states. Physiological arousal and emotionalstatesaffectaperson’sexpectancy judgments regarding specific tasks
(Bandura, 1977). Negative emotions,
such as anxiety, regarding a specific
task can produce negative judgments
ofone’sefficacy,whereasarousal,such
as intellectual interest in a task, can
improve perceptions of self-efficacy
(Bandura,1986).Forthepurposeofour
study, the anxiety and emotional discomfort felt by individuals when their
team had conflict represented physiologicalarousalandemotionalstates.
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Team conflict selfefficacy has a positive impact on career
outcomeexpectancy.
Hypothesis 7 (H7): Team conflict selfefficacyhasapositiveimpactoncurrent
teamoutcomeexpectancy.
Hypothesis8(H8):Careeroutcomeexpectancyhasapositiveimpactonbehavioral
intentionstouseteamskills.
Hypothesis 9 (H9): Current team outcomeexpectancyhasapositiveimpacton
behavioralintentionstouseteamskills.
Hypothesis4(H4):Theemotionalstateof
ateammemberduringateamconflicthas
asignificantandpositiveimpactonteam
conflictself-efficacy.
On the basis of the literature, we
developedamodelthatrelatedtheantecedents of self-efficacy to students’
behavioral intentions to use their team
skills, mediated by team conflict selfefficacy and the outcome expectancies
(seeFigure1).
Hypothesis 5 (H5): The amount of team
membersupportintheteamhasasignificantandpositiveimpactonteamconflict
self-efficacy.
We theorized four antecedents to
impactteamconflictself-efficacy,which
in turn would impact two types of outcomeexpectancy.Thefirstwastheperceptionthattheteamskillsdevelopedby
students would favorably influence the
students’ professional career. The sec-
METHOD
We developed our study on the basis
of the questionnaire responses from 140
Teamconflict
experience
Careeroutcome
expectancy
H1
Vicariousteam
experience
H2
H3
Teammentor
influence
H4
Emotional
stateduringteam
conflict
H5
H8
H6
Teamconflict
self-efficacy
Behavorialintentions
touseteamskills
H7
H9
Currentteam
outcomeexpectancy
Teammember
support
FIGURE1. Hypothesized model relating the antecedents of team conflict
self-efficacytostudents’behavioralintentionstouseteamskills.
May/June2007
259
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
seniorandjuniorstudents(seeAppendix).
The students had significant experiences
working in student teams. At the time,
theywerecompletingclassroomactivities
thatrequiredthemtoworkinteams.
We gathered the responses using the
traditional paper-and-pencil questionnaire(seeAppendix).Wedevelopedthe
itemsonthequestionnairetomeasurethe
required constructions in the theoretical
model.Wedevelopedthemeasuresonthe
basis of the previously published scales
from Stone and Henry (1998, 2003),
Henry and Stone (1999), and Alper et
al.(2000).Thestudentswereenrolledin
either the strategic management course
or the integrated business curriculum—a
teamintensive,17-creditintegratedcommonbodyofknowledgecourse.Students
tookpartonavolunteerbasis.Weoffered
a small amount of credit points to the
studentswhotookpartinthestudy.The
points did not significantly affect a student’sgradebecausetheywerelessthan
1%ofthetotalfortheclass.Of173questionnaires distributed, students returned
140 (81%) completed questionnaires
(Table1providesadditionaldemographic
informationontheparticipants).
The respondents’ mean age was 22
years. Approximately 44% of the students were women. Participants represented each major in the business
college. The sample was representative because each of the comparison
statistics indicated no significant differences between the population and
sample demographics. We defined the
population as the students who were
enrolled in the college of business and
economics.
TheMeasuresandTheir
PsychometricProperties
We measured the constructs in the
modelbyaseriesofquestionnaireitems
and modified most of the items from
Stone and Henry (2003), Henry and
Stone(1999),StoneandHenry(1998),
and Alper et al. (2000). We show the
asspecificquestionnaireitemsgrouped
intothemeasuresinTable2.
Weperformedtheevaluationofthese
measuresbyusingtheresultsofaconfirmatory factor analysis. We did the
confirmatory factor analysis using a
structuralequationapproach(i.e.,Calis)
in PC SAS version 8.2. We included
eachmeasureinthefactoranalysisand
allowed that to be pairwise correlated.
Wedidnotdefineanypathsbetweenthe
measures.Themeasureswerereflective
in their indicants and had a standard
deviationsetequaltoone.Theindicants
andmeasureswerealsoaffectedbydisturbanceterms.Weusedtheestimation
method of maximum likelihood. The
results of the estimation with regard
to the overall fit of the model to the
data were acceptable (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham,&Black,1992).Thegoodness-
of-fit index was 0.88, whereas when
adjusted for degrees of freedom it was
0.82. The root mean square residual
was 0.05. The Chi-square statistic was
TABLE1.DemographicCharacteristicsoftheSampleUsedintheStudy
Variable
Age(years)
Gender
Male
Female
Gradelevel
Junior
Senior
Major
Business
Accounting
Marketing
Managementandhumanresources
Informationsystems
Finance
Economics
Productionandoperationsmanagement
260
JournalofEducationforBusiness
%
55.8
44.2
55.7
44.3
100
28
23
19
14
10
4
2
MSD
22.08
3.88
207.52 with 173 degrees of freedom
(N=140).Itwassignificantlydifferent
from zero at a 5% level. The normed
Chi-squarestatisticwas1.20.Bentler’s
comparative fit index was 0.98, and
theincrementalfitindexes(i.e.,Bentler
and Bonett’s normed and non-normed
indexes and Bollen’s normed and nonnormed indexes) ranged from 0.84 to
0.98.Althoughthesefitmeasureswere
mixed with regard to the fit between
themodelandthedata,thevalueswere
sufficient to conclude that this fit was
acceptable(Hairetal.).
Weevaluatedthepsychometricpropertiesofthemeasuresusingthestandardized path coefficients from the factor
analysis. The standardized path coefficients(i.e.,factorloadings)rangedfrom
0.71 to 0.98. The values indicated that
theysatisfieditemreliability(Rainer&
Harrison, 1993). The reliability coefficientsdevelopedfromthestandardized
path coefficients ranged from .75 for
the team conflict self-efficacy measure
to.92forthevicariousteamexperience
measure. On the basis of these values, composite reliability was satisfied
(Nunnally, 1978). We also computed
theaveragepercentagesofsharedvariance.Thesevalueswere60%orgreater,
demonstratingsatisfactorylevelsofthis
trait (Rivard & Huff, 1988). We concluded that the values satisfied convergentvalidityforeachmeasure(Igbaria
&Greenhaus,1992;Rainer&Harrison;
seeTable2).Wealsoexamineddiscriminant validity using the standardized
path coefficient details from the confirmatoryfactoranalysis.Theexamination compared the squared correlation
between each pair of measures (computed from the correlations estimated
in the confirmatory factor analysis) to
theiraveragepercentageofsharedvariances. Discriminant validity is satisfiedif,foreachmeasurepair,theaverage percentages of shared variance are
greater than the corresponding squared
correlation (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Thesesquaredcorrelationsrangedfrom
.00to.16.Becauseallthesquaredcorrelationsweresmallerthantheaverage
percentages of shared variances, discriminant validity was satisfied (Fornell&Larcker).Themeasuressatisfied
construct validity because satisfactory
discriminant validity is satisfied when
TABLE2.TheIndicants,Measures,andTheirPsychometricProperties
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
Measureandindicants
Standardizedpathcoefficient
Teamconflictexperience(α=.80;sharedvariance=67%)
Myteamhadnumerousdisagreementsorconflicts.
Myteamhaddivisivedisagreementsorconflicts.
Vicariousteamexperience(reliabilitycoefficient=.92;sharedvariance=79%)
Ilearnedhowtoresolvedisagreementsorconflictsfromotherteams.
Iobservedhowotherteamsresolveddisagreementsorconflicts.
Ilearnedbylisteningtootherteamsastheyresolvedtheirdisagreementsorconflicts.
Teammentorinfluence(reliabilitycoefficient=.90;sharedvariance=75%)
Amentorhelpedmyteamresolvedisagreementsorconflicts.
Amentorforcedtheteamtoacknowledgeandresolveourdisagreements.
Amentorencouragedustoresolveteamdisagreementsorconflicts.
Emotionalstateduringteamconflict(reliabilitycoefficient=.82;sharedvariance=70%)
Whenmyteamhadadisagreementorconflict,Ifelt...
...calm(or,nervous).
...confident(or,insecure).
Teammembersupport(reliabilitycoefficient=.84;sharedvariance=73%)
Whenourteamdisagreedorhadconflicts,weworkedtogethertoresolvethem.
Whenmyteamhaddisagreementsorconflicts,teammemberssupportedeachothertofindasolution.
Teamconflictself-efficacy(reliabilitycoefficient=.75;sharedvariance=60%)
Iknewhowtobringmyteamtoaresolutionofateamdisagreementorconflict.
Ihadverygoodskillstohelpmyteamresolveteamdisagreementsorconflicts.
Careeroutcomeexpectancy(reliabilitycoefficient=.87;sharedvariance=70%)
Byhelpingmyteamtoresolvedisagreementsorconflicts,Iam...
...morequalifiedtomorefirmswhenIgraduate.
...betterqualifiedforjobswhenIgraduate.
...qualifiedformorejobswhenIgraduate.
Currentteamoutcomeexpectancy(reliabilitycoefficient=.85;sharedvariance=73%)
Byhelpingmyteamtoresolvedisagreementsorconflicts,I...
...producedhigherqualityofworkonteamactivities.
...workedmoreefficientlyonteamactivities.
Behavioralintentionstouseteamskills(reliabilitycoefficient=.88;sharedvariance=72%)
Givenmyexperienceshelpingtoresolvedisagreementsorconflictsonthispastteam,Iintendto...
...moreactivelyworktoresolvedisagreements/conflictsonfutureteams.
...bemoreproactiveinresolvingdisagreements/conflictsonfutureteams.
...improvemyskillstoresolveteamdisagreements/conflicts.
coupledwithconvergentvalidity(Rainer&Harrison).
RESULTS
We statistically estimated the model
shown in Figure 1 by using a structural
equations approach. The measures were
reflectiveintheirindicants.Theantecedents of team conflict self-efficacy were
exogenous in the model and scaled by
setting their standard deviations to one.
We scaled the endogenous measures in
the model (i.e., team conflict self-efficacy,careeroutcomeexpectancy,current
teamoutcomeexpectancy,andbehavioral
intentionstouseteamskills)bysettingthe
path between one indicant and the measuretoone.Wecarriedouttheestimation
usingmaximumlikelihood.
Wesummarizethefitoftheestimated
modeltothedatainTable3.Thegood
ness-of-fit index was 0.86 (0.82 when
adjusted for degrees of freedom). The
root mean square residual was 0.08.
The Chi-square statistic was 243.08
with190degreesoffreedom(N=140),
whichwassignificantata1%level.The
normed Chi-square statistic was 1.28,
whereasBentler’scomparativefitindex
was 0.96. The incremental fit indexes
(i.e., Bentler and Bonett’s normed and
non-normed fit indexes and Bollen’s
normed and non-normed indexes)
ranged from 0.83 to 0.96. Although
thefitstatisticsweremixed,thevalues
were sufficient to conclude that the fit
between the model and the data was
acceptable(Hairetal.,1992).
The estimation of the model
showed that all the paths between
themeasuresandtheirindicantswere
significantata1%levelandweresufficientlylargetobemeaningful.This
0.78
0.86
0.89
0.90
0.87
0.85
0.84
0.91
0.91
0.75
0.98
0.71
0.79
0.76
0.89
0.78
0.83
0.90
0.81
0.89
0.84
0.81
suggested that we used the measurementsappropriately.
For H1–H5, we examined the paths
from antecedents to team conflict selfefficacy.TheresultdidnotsupportH1,
that team conflict experience would
leadtogreaterteamconflictself-efficacy.ResultssupportedH2,thatvicarious
team experience would lead to greater
team conflict self-efficacy, at the 1%
level. The path was also sufficiently
large to be meaningful. The result did
notsupportH3,thatteammentorinfluencewouldhaveasignificantandpositive impact on team conflict self-efficacy. It also did not support H4, that
the emotional state of a team member
duringteamconflictwouldhaveasignificant and positive impact on team
conflict self-efficacy. The result supported H5, that team member support
would have a significant and positive
May/June2007
261
TABLE3.SummaryStatisticsoftheFitoftheModelandtheData
supporting H8 and H9. The details of
theseresultsareinFigure2.
Statistic
DISCUSSION
Value
Goodness-of-fitindex
Adjustedgoodness-of-fitindex
Rootmeansquareresidual
Chi-squarestatistic
Degreesoffreedom
Normedchi-squarestatistic
Bentler’scomparativefitindex
BentlerandBonett’snon-normedfitindex
BentlerandBonett’snormedfitindex
Bollennormedindex
Bollennon-normedindex
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
*
0.86
0.82
0.08
243.08*
190
1.28
0.96
0.96
0.86
0.83
0.96
Significantatthe.01level.
impact on team conflict self-efficacy,
atthe1%level.Thispathwasalsosufficientlylargetobemeaningful.
Thepathsfromteamconflictself-efficacy to career outcome expectancy and
current team outcome expectancy were
1
2
0.92**
3
16
0.73**
**
0.90
**
0.87
0.78**
0.90#
0.42
**
0.28**
13
#
0.85**
Teammentor
influence
8
0.26**
0.01
Vicariousteam
experience
0.71
0.84**
0.83
0.77**
9
0.88**
Emotionalstate
duringteam
conflict
0.47**
**
0.81
0.24**
22
Currentteam
outcome
0.86#
0.88**
Teammember
support
Behavorial
intentionstouse
0.21**
10
11
0.88#
0.85**
**
14
0.18
20
21
Teamconflict
self-efficacy
−0.06
**
0.91
0.83**
Careeroutcome
expectancy
0.89**
6
7
17
15
Teamconflict
experience
4
5
statisticallysignificantandlargeenough
tobemeaningful,supportingH6andH7.
Inaddition,thepathsfrombothoutcome
expectancies to behavioral intentions to
useteamskillswerestatisticallysignificantandlargeenoughtobemeaningful,
The empirical results indicated that
vicarious team experience and team
membersupportpositivelyaffectbehavioralintentionsofstudents,touseteam
skills mediated by team conflict selfefficacy and the two outcome expectancies. The meaning of these results
is that students’ behavioral intentions
to use their team skills are influenced
by students observing or listening to
otherteamssolveconflictsandbyhavingasupportive,encouragingintrateam
environment. Behavioral intentions to
useteamskillsisanimportantvariable
because it suggests that the team skills
areviewedassufficientlyimportantby
studentstoactuallyuseinthefuture.
There are several implications for
instructors requiring team activities of
18
0.85**
19
0.79**
12
FIGURE2.Actualmodelrelatingteamconflictself-efficacytostudents’behavioralintentionstouseteamskillsand
results.**Significantat1%level.#Usedtoscalethecorrespondinglatentvariable.
262
JournalofEducationforBusiness
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
students. An apparent key to developing
behavioralintentionsofteamskillsinstudents is developing their perceptions of
teamconflictself-efficacyaswellastheir
outcome expectancies. On the basis of
theseempiricalresults,providingstudents
opportunitiestoobserveordiscussconflict
resolution experiences with other student
teamshelpsdevelopteamconflictself-efficacy.Instructorscanprovidetheseexperiencesbymatchingtwoormorecurrentstudentteamsformutualsupportandbehavior
modeling.Itmaybethecasethatstudents
who have already completed the course
andperformedsimilarteamactivitiescould
be matched with current student teams
to provide this support. Although Chen,
Donahue,andKlimoski(2004)foundthat
studentstakingateamskillscoursedidnot
increasetheirself-efficacyabouttheirabilitytobeeffectiveinteamwork,wefound
thatprovidingandsupportingteaminteractionsbothinsideandoutsideofclassmay
well improve students’ behavioral intentions through team conflict self-efficacy
andoutcomeexpectancy.
Ourresultsalsoindicatethatthrough
encouraging a supportive environment
within the team, instructors can help
thestudentsdevelopteamconflictselfefficacy. Instructors can encourage this
by providing structured experiences in
the team formation and development
processtostudents.Partoftheseexperiences can also be the explicit development of shared goals, expectations,
team values, and operational rules.
Another aspect to these experiences
would be the development of respect
forteammembers.Iftheseexperiences
develop a positive environment within
theteam,ithelpsdevelopteamconflict
self-efficacy among the team members
and ultimately affect students’ behavioralintentions.
Astheempiricalresultsindicated,team
conflictself-efficacypositivelyaffectsstudents’ behavioral intentions to use these
skills through the outcome expectancies.
Theseoutcomeexpectanciescanbeinfluencedbytheinstructorthroughimpressinguponstudentshowsuccessfullyworking in teams and developing team skills
willproducepositive,futureoutcomesin
theircurrentteamandtheirfuturecareer.
Thisencouragementcanbeintheformof
havingrecentgraduatesasguestspeakers
inclassesrelatingtheimportanceofteam
skillsforfuturecareerstostudents.These
activitieswillinfluencecareerandcurrent
teamoutcomeexpectancyandultimately
behavioral intentions to use team skills.
By positively affecting behavioral intentionstousetheseteamskills,theinstructors can help students to work in teams
anddevelopteamskills.
Threeofourpredictedantecedentsto
teamconflictself-efficacywerenotsignificant. Team conflict experience did
nothaveasignificantimpactonthestudents’ team conflict self-efficacy. Two
possible explanations for this are that
therewasasmallamountofvariationin
theamountofteamconflictexperienced
and the items themselves asked about
conflictexperience.Thesmallvariation
created a restricted range and reduced
ourabilitytoidentifytheimpactthatthe
variablemighthaveontheteamconflict
self-efficacy. Also, the wording of the
items did not ask for experience with
conflictresolution,butratherwithconflict.Wewouldmeasurethisdifferently
inourfutureresearch.Theitemswould
more appropriately measure students’
experience with successfully resolving
team conflict rather than experience
withteamconflict.
Theteammentorandemotionalstate
during team conflict variables did not
affectanindividual’steamconflictselfefficacy.Again, both of these variables
had relatively low statistical variation.
Also,teammentorsmayhavebeenperceived as instructing the students how
toresolveconflictratherthanencouraging them that they could resolve team
conflict.Researchersgenerallyfindthat
social persuasion influences self-efficacy,butthepersuasionisusuallyinthe
form of encouraging people that they
can do something. It is possible that
teammentorswerenotveryeffectiveat
helpingtheteammembersincreasetheir
beliefsthattheycouldresolveteamconflict.Theemotionalstate,orphysiologicalarousal,amongparticipantsbrought
verylittlestatisticalvariation.
DirectionsforFutureResearch
The examination of the theoretical
model is the first of several research
efforts. First, it would be worthwhile
to validate this basic model by using
adifferentsample.Inotherwords,are
these empirical results particular to
the sample drawn? In this context, it
would also be of interest to try different methods to encourage vicarious team experience and team member support and evaluate their relative
impacts on behavioral intentions. A
third research extension would be to
examine how this model affects not
behavioral intentions but actual team
performance.Teamperformancecould
bemeasuredperceptuallyorviaateam
grade or other outcome. The relationship between one’s experience with
teamconflictresolutionandone’steam
conflict self-efficacy needs further
investigation. An additional direction
forresearchwouldbetotestthebasic
model with a sample of business professionalswhoworkinteams.
Conclusion
We developed and empirically tested a model linking the antecedents of
team conflict self-efficacy to behavioralintentionstouseteamskills.The
results showed that vicarious team
experiencesandteammembersupport
affectbehavioralintentionsofstudents
to use team skills. These results are
encouraging because instructors can
manipulate and influence these antecedentsandultimatelystudents’behavioralintentions.
NOTE
Robert W. Stone (PhD, Purdue University)
is currently a professor of information systems
attheUniversityofIdaho.Histeachinginterests
are information systems, financial institutions,
and strategic management. His research interests
includeorganizationalandstrategyimpactsfrom
information system use and user acceptance of
informationsystems.
JeffreyJ.Bailey(Ph.D.,UniversityofAkron)
isaprofessorofmanagementandhumanresourcesattheUniversityofIdaho.Histeachinginterests are in human resource management, organizational behavior, and strategic management.
His research interests include decision-making
behaviorinretirementsaving,businessethics,and
methods and techniques for improving managementeducation.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. Jeffrey J. Bailey, Campus
Delivery3161,CollegeofBusinessandEconomics, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 838443161.
E–mail:jbailey@uidaho.edu
REFERENCES
Alper,S.,Tjosvold,D.,&Law,K.S.(2000).Conflictmanagement,efficacy,andperformancein
May/June2007
263
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology,
53,625–642.
Bandura,A. (1977). Self-efficacy:Toward a unifyingtheoryofbehavioralchange.PsychologicalReview,84,191–215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in
human agency. American Psychologist, 37,
122–147.
Bandura,A.(1986).Socialfoundationofthought
and action: A social cognitive theory. New
Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
Baronas,A.K.,&Louis,M.R.(1988).Restoring
asenseofcontrolduringimplementation:How
user involvement leads to system acceptance.
MISQuarterly,12,111–123.
Buckenmyer,J.A.(2001).Usingteamsforclass
activities: Making course/classroom teams
work. Journal of Education for Business, 76,
98–107.
Burn,S.M.(2003).Groups:Theoryandpractice.
Toronto,Ontario,Canada:Wadsworth/ThompsonLearning.
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,46,823–850.
Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J.
(2004). Training undergraduates to work in
organizationalteams.AcademyofManagement
LearningandEducation,3(1),27–40.
Cohen,S.G.,&Bailey,D.E.(1997).Whatmakes
teamswork:Groupeffectivenessresearchfrom
theshopfloortotheexecutivesuite.Journalof
Management,23,239–290.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating
structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of
MarketingResearch,18,39–50.
Gardner, B. S., & Korth, S. J. (1999).A frameworkforlearningtoworkinteams.Journalof
EducationforBusiness,74,28–33.
Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, C. P.
(2000). Understanding group efficacy: An
empiricaltestofmultipleassessmentmethods.
Group & Organization Management, 25(1),
67–97.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy:Atheoreticalanalysisofitsdeterminants
and malleability. Academy of Management
Review,17,183–211.
Hair, J. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., &
Black,W.C.(1992).Multivariatedataanalysis
withreadings.NewYork:MacMillan.
Henry,J.W.,&Stone,R.W.(1999).Theeffectsof
computerself-efficacyandoutcomeexpectancy
on end-user job control and stress. Journal
of International Information Management, 8,
23–37.
Igbaria,M.,&Greenhaus,J.H.(1992).Determinants of MIS employee’s turnover intentions:
A structural equation model. Communications
oftheACM,35,35–49.
Ilgen,D.R.(1999).Teamsembeddedinorganizations.AmericanPsychologist,54,129–139.
Jones, G. R. (2004). Organizational theory,
design, and change, (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Martinko, M. J., Henry, J. W., & Zmud, R.W.
(1996).Anattributionalexplanationofindividualresistancetotheintroductionofinformation
technologies in the workplace. Behaviour &
InformationTechnology,15,313–330.
McKendall, M. (2000). Teaching groups to
becometeams.JournalofEducationforBusiness,75,277–282.
Meier,S.T.(1985).Computeraversion.ComputersinHumanBehavior,1,71–179.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Methods (2nd
ed).NewYork:McGrawHill.
Page,D.,&Donelan,J.G.(2003).Team-building
tools for students. Journal of Education for
Business,78,125–128.
Rainer, R. K., Jr., & Harrison, A. W. (1993).
Towarddevelopmentoftheendusercomputing
construct in a university setting. Decision SciencesJournal,24,1187–1202.
Rivard,S.,&Huff,S.(1988).Factorsofsuccess
forendusercomputing.Communicationsofthe
ACM,3,552–561.
Stone,R.W.,&Henry,J.W.(1998).Computer
self-efficacy and outcome expectations and
their impacts on behavioral intentions to
use computers in non-volitional settings.
JournalofBusinessandManagement,6(1),
45–58.
Stone,R.W.,&Henry,J.W.(2003).Therolesof
computerself-efficacyandoutcomeexpectancy
in influencing the computer end-user’s organizational commitment. Journal of End User
Computing,15(1),38–53.
Sundstrom,E.(1999).Thechallengesofsupporting work team effectiveness. In E. Sundstrom
& Associates (Eds.), Supporting work team
effectiveness: Best management practices for
fostering high performance (pp. 3–23). San
Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Tjosvold,D.(1991).Theconflict-positiveorganization.NewYork:Addison-Wesley.
APPENDIX
TeamSelf-Assessment
Pleaseanswerthefollowingquestionsregardingyourexperiencesworkingonateaminthepast.Thesequestionsaredesignedto
assessyourattitudes,feelings,andexperiencesofworkinginteamsaswellasforyoutobetterunderstandtherelationsamongthesefactorsandteamperformance.Allindividualresponsestothesequestionswillbestrictlyconfidential.Onlysummariesofresponsesacross
groupsofindividualswillbestudied,soindividualresponseswillnotberevealed.However,youmaychoosetosharetheinsightsyou
havegainedwithyourcurrentteammates.
Forallquestions,exceptinthelastsection,pleaserespondbycirclingthenumberthatbestrepresentsyouragreementordisagreementwiththecorrespondingstatement.Thescalesandweightstouseare:1=StronglyDisagree(SD),2=Disagree(D),3=Neither
AgreenorDisagree(N),4=Agree(A),and5=StronglyAgree(SA).
Considerateamonwhichyouhavebeenamemberinthepast(notateamthissemester).Thinkingaboutthisteam,answerthe
followingquestionsusingthescalesontheright.
SD
D
N
A
SA
1.Iworkedonateamthathaddisagreementsorconflictsamongitsmembers.
2.Iworkedonateamthatresolveddisagreementsorconflictsamongitsmembers.
3.Ihelpedmyteamresolvedisagreementsorconflicts.
4.Idevelopedskillsinresolvingteamdisagreementsorconflicts.
5.Iexperienceddisagreementsorconflictsseveraldifferenttimesonthisteam.
6.Isawmanydisagreementsorconflictsresolvedonthisteam.
7.Friendsonotherteamstoldmehowtheyresolvedteamdisagreementsorconflicts.
8.Ilearnedhowtoresolvedisagreementsorconflictsfromotherteams.
9.Iobservedhowotherteamsresolveddisagreementsorconflicts.
10.Ilearnedbylisteningtootherteamsastheyresolvedtheirdisagreementsorconflicts.
11.Ilearnedviathe“grapevine”howotherteamsresolvedtheirdisagreementsorconflicts.
12.Bylisteningtootherteams’experiences,Ilearnedhowmyteamcouldresolveitsdisagreements
orconflicts.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
(appendixcontinues)
264
JournalofEducationforBusiness
APPENDIX-Continued
1 3.Friendsnotonmyteamencouragedmetohelpresolvemyteam’sdisagreementsorconflicts.
14.Whenourteamdisagreedorh
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Team Conflict Self-Efficacy and Outcome
Expectancy of Business Students
Robert W. Stone & Jeffrey J. Bailey
To cite this article: Robert W. Stone & Jeffrey J. Bailey (2007) Team Conflict Self-Efficacy and
Outcome Expectancy of Business Students, Journal of Education for Business, 82:5, 258-266,
DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.82.5.258-266
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.5.258-266
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 79
View related articles
Citing articles: 11 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:27
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
TeamConflictSelf-EfficacyandOutcome
ExpectancyofBusinessStudents
ROBERTW.STONE
JEFFREYJ.BAILEY
UNIVERSITYOFIDAHO
MOSCOW,IDAHO
ABSTRACT.Onthebasisofaselfefficacyframework,theauthorspresent
ABSTRACT.
atheoreticallysoundmodelexplaining
thebehavioralintentionsofstudentsto
applyteamworkskillstheylearninbusinesscourses.Themodellinksvariablesat
leastpartiallycontrollablebyfacultyina
classroomsettingtostudents’behavioral
intentionstouseteamworkskills.The
authorsempiricallytestedthetheoretical
model.Theresultsshowthatvicarious
teamexperienceandteammembersupport
significantlyaffectedteamconflictself-efficacy.Teamconflictself-efficacyinfluenced
careeroutcomeexpectancyandcurrent
teamoutcomeexpectancy.Bothoutcome
expectanciesaffectedbehavioralintentions
touseteamskillsinasignificantway.The
authorsalsodiscussedthepedagogical
implicationsoftheresults.
Keywords:self-efficacy,teams,teamoutcomeexpectancies
Copyright©2007HeldrefPublications
258
JournalofEducationforBusiness
T
eaching business students to be
effective team members should be
atoppriority.Theworkofbusinessprofessionalsisincreasinglydoneinateam
environment (Cohen & Bailey, 1997;
Gibson, Randel, & Earley, 2000; Jones,
2004;Sundstrom,1999).Eightypercent
of companies with over 100 employees
useteamstocompletetheirwork(Cohen
& Bailey). By necessity, business students need exposure to the skills and
experiencesofworkinginteams.
It is fortunate that business education in colleges around the world now
entailswidespreaduseofstudentteams.
Inrecentyears,academicjournalshave
published many articles dealing with
student-team effectiveness. However,
there is still more that people can do
to improve. A number of researchers
haveindicatedthatmorecanbedoneto
explicitly develop teamwork skills and
abilities in our students (Buckenmyer,
2001; Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski,
2004; Gardner & Korth, 1999; McKendall, 2000; Page & Donelan, 2003).
One of many such teamwork skills is
the ability to resolve conflict within a
team (Burn, 2003; Ilgen, 1999; Tjosvold,1991).Grouporteamself-efficacy
is an important process that influences
teameffectiveness(Gibsonetal.,2003).
Inthisstudy,wefocusedonteamconflictself-efficacy.
Our purpose in this study was to
develop and test a theoretically sound
modellinkingvariablescontrollableby
faculty in a classroom setting to stu-
dents’behavioralintentionstouseteam
conflictresolutionskillstheydeveloped
in their classes. We demonstrated the
relation between students’ behavioral
intentions to use the skills and faculty controllable variables mediated by
teamconflictself-efficacyandoutcome
expectancy. The concept of team conflict self-efficacy is useful for understanding how different approaches to
conflict resolution are associated with
team effectiveness (Alper, Tjosvold,
& Law, 2000; Campion, Medsker, &
Higgs,1993).
HypothesesandLiterature
Review
Atheoreticalfoundationofproviding
students with teamwork experiences is
self-efficacy theory (SET). The theory
explainsemployeereactionstoworking
in teams and managing conflict within
the team (Bandura, 1986; Baronas &
Louis,1988;Martinko,Henry,&Zmud,
1996;Meier,1985).Self-efficacytheorysuggeststhatexpectationsaremajor
factorsdeterminingaffectiveandbehavioral reactions in numerous situations
(e.g., motivation, performance, and
feelings of frustration associated with
repeatedfailure).Bandura(1986)separatedexpectationsintoself-efficacyand
outcome expectancy. In general, selfefficacyisthebeliefthatonepossesses
the skills and abilities to successfully
accomplishaspecifictask.Self-efficacy
influencespeople’spersistencetolearn
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
a task and affects their perceptions of
future outcomes. Outcome expectancy
is the belief that accomplishing a task
results in the attainment of a desired
outcome.
Bandura (1977, 1982) proposed
fourgroupsofvariablesorexperiences
that affect an individual’s self-efficacy
beliefsconcerningaparticulartask.The
first and strongest is the individual’s
personal mastery or accomplishments
regardingthetask.Priorsuccessesperforming the task increase self-efficacy
regarding the task. Repeated failures
when performing the task lower these
expectations (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
For example, in the context of team
activities, successful experiences dealingwithconflictordisagreementpresent on the team should be associated
with higher team conflict self-efficacy.
Thisledtoourfirsthypothesis.
Hypothesis1(H1):Thelevelofteamconflictexperiencehasasignificantandpositiveimpactonteamconflictself-efficacy.
Bandura’s second group of variables
is vicarious experiences, or modeling
thebehaviorofotherswhosuccessfully
complete the task. Through observing
others successfully complete the task,
the observers can improve their own
performance (Bandura, 1977; Gist &
Mitchell,1992).Forthisstudy,wecan
view vicarious experience as listening
to and watching other teams resolve
conflictontheirteams.
Hypothesis2(H2):Thelevelofvicarious
team experience has a significant and
positive impact on team conflict selfefficacy.
Socialpersuasionisthelabelplaced
onthethirdgroupofvariables.Social
persuasionoccurswhensomeonetells
the individuals that they can successfully complete the task in question.
Common forms of social persuasion
are verbal encouragement, coaching,
and providing performance feedback
(Bandura, 1977). In this study, we
used encouragement and help from a
facultymemberwhomentorstheteam
astheformsofsocialpersuasion.We
considered the support and concern
teammembersprovidedeachotheras
they resolved conflicts and disagreements as one of the variables in the
category.
ond outcome expectancy was students’
perceptions that the skills would favorablyinfluencetheirperformanceontheir
currentteam.Wehypothesizedbothoutcome expectancies to positively affect
students’ behavioral intentions to use
the team skills they had developed. We
derivedthefollowinghypothesesgenerallyfromself-efficacytheoryonthebasis
ofthetheory’stenetsrelatingtooutcome
expectancyandbehavioralintentions.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): The influence of a
teammentorhasasignificantandpositive
impactonteamconflictself-efficacy.
The last group of antecedents to
self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
is physiological arousal and emotional
states. Physiological arousal and emotionalstatesaffectaperson’sexpectancy judgments regarding specific tasks
(Bandura, 1977). Negative emotions,
such as anxiety, regarding a specific
task can produce negative judgments
ofone’sefficacy,whereasarousal,such
as intellectual interest in a task, can
improve perceptions of self-efficacy
(Bandura,1986).Forthepurposeofour
study, the anxiety and emotional discomfort felt by individuals when their
team had conflict represented physiologicalarousalandemotionalstates.
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Team conflict selfefficacy has a positive impact on career
outcomeexpectancy.
Hypothesis 7 (H7): Team conflict selfefficacyhasapositiveimpactoncurrent
teamoutcomeexpectancy.
Hypothesis8(H8):Careeroutcomeexpectancyhasapositiveimpactonbehavioral
intentionstouseteamskills.
Hypothesis 9 (H9): Current team outcomeexpectancyhasapositiveimpacton
behavioralintentionstouseteamskills.
Hypothesis4(H4):Theemotionalstateof
ateammemberduringateamconflicthas
asignificantandpositiveimpactonteam
conflictself-efficacy.
On the basis of the literature, we
developedamodelthatrelatedtheantecedents of self-efficacy to students’
behavioral intentions to use their team
skills, mediated by team conflict selfefficacy and the outcome expectancies
(seeFigure1).
Hypothesis 5 (H5): The amount of team
membersupportintheteamhasasignificantandpositiveimpactonteamconflict
self-efficacy.
We theorized four antecedents to
impactteamconflictself-efficacy,which
in turn would impact two types of outcomeexpectancy.Thefirstwastheperceptionthattheteamskillsdevelopedby
students would favorably influence the
students’ professional career. The sec-
METHOD
We developed our study on the basis
of the questionnaire responses from 140
Teamconflict
experience
Careeroutcome
expectancy
H1
Vicariousteam
experience
H2
H3
Teammentor
influence
H4
Emotional
stateduringteam
conflict
H5
H8
H6
Teamconflict
self-efficacy
Behavorialintentions
touseteamskills
H7
H9
Currentteam
outcomeexpectancy
Teammember
support
FIGURE1. Hypothesized model relating the antecedents of team conflict
self-efficacytostudents’behavioralintentionstouseteamskills.
May/June2007
259
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
seniorandjuniorstudents(seeAppendix).
The students had significant experiences
working in student teams. At the time,
theywerecompletingclassroomactivities
thatrequiredthemtoworkinteams.
We gathered the responses using the
traditional paper-and-pencil questionnaire(seeAppendix).Wedevelopedthe
itemsonthequestionnairetomeasurethe
required constructions in the theoretical
model.Wedevelopedthemeasuresonthe
basis of the previously published scales
from Stone and Henry (1998, 2003),
Henry and Stone (1999), and Alper et
al.(2000).Thestudentswereenrolledin
either the strategic management course
or the integrated business curriculum—a
teamintensive,17-creditintegratedcommonbodyofknowledgecourse.Students
tookpartonavolunteerbasis.Weoffered
a small amount of credit points to the
studentswhotookpartinthestudy.The
points did not significantly affect a student’sgradebecausetheywerelessthan
1%ofthetotalfortheclass.Of173questionnaires distributed, students returned
140 (81%) completed questionnaires
(Table1providesadditionaldemographic
informationontheparticipants).
The respondents’ mean age was 22
years. Approximately 44% of the students were women. Participants represented each major in the business
college. The sample was representative because each of the comparison
statistics indicated no significant differences between the population and
sample demographics. We defined the
population as the students who were
enrolled in the college of business and
economics.
TheMeasuresandTheir
PsychometricProperties
We measured the constructs in the
modelbyaseriesofquestionnaireitems
and modified most of the items from
Stone and Henry (2003), Henry and
Stone(1999),StoneandHenry(1998),
and Alper et al. (2000). We show the
asspecificquestionnaireitemsgrouped
intothemeasuresinTable2.
Weperformedtheevaluationofthese
measuresbyusingtheresultsofaconfirmatory factor analysis. We did the
confirmatory factor analysis using a
structuralequationapproach(i.e.,Calis)
in PC SAS version 8.2. We included
eachmeasureinthefactoranalysisand
allowed that to be pairwise correlated.
Wedidnotdefineanypathsbetweenthe
measures.Themeasureswerereflective
in their indicants and had a standard
deviationsetequaltoone.Theindicants
andmeasureswerealsoaffectedbydisturbanceterms.Weusedtheestimation
method of maximum likelihood. The
results of the estimation with regard
to the overall fit of the model to the
data were acceptable (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham,&Black,1992).Thegoodness-
of-fit index was 0.88, whereas when
adjusted for degrees of freedom it was
0.82. The root mean square residual
was 0.05. The Chi-square statistic was
TABLE1.DemographicCharacteristicsoftheSampleUsedintheStudy
Variable
Age(years)
Gender
Male
Female
Gradelevel
Junior
Senior
Major
Business
Accounting
Marketing
Managementandhumanresources
Informationsystems
Finance
Economics
Productionandoperationsmanagement
260
JournalofEducationforBusiness
%
55.8
44.2
55.7
44.3
100
28
23
19
14
10
4
2
MSD
22.08
3.88
207.52 with 173 degrees of freedom
(N=140).Itwassignificantlydifferent
from zero at a 5% level. The normed
Chi-squarestatisticwas1.20.Bentler’s
comparative fit index was 0.98, and
theincrementalfitindexes(i.e.,Bentler
and Bonett’s normed and non-normed
indexes and Bollen’s normed and nonnormed indexes) ranged from 0.84 to
0.98.Althoughthesefitmeasureswere
mixed with regard to the fit between
themodelandthedata,thevalueswere
sufficient to conclude that this fit was
acceptable(Hairetal.).
Weevaluatedthepsychometricpropertiesofthemeasuresusingthestandardized path coefficients from the factor
analysis. The standardized path coefficients(i.e.,factorloadings)rangedfrom
0.71 to 0.98. The values indicated that
theysatisfieditemreliability(Rainer&
Harrison, 1993). The reliability coefficientsdevelopedfromthestandardized
path coefficients ranged from .75 for
the team conflict self-efficacy measure
to.92forthevicariousteamexperience
measure. On the basis of these values, composite reliability was satisfied
(Nunnally, 1978). We also computed
theaveragepercentagesofsharedvariance.Thesevalueswere60%orgreater,
demonstratingsatisfactorylevelsofthis
trait (Rivard & Huff, 1988). We concluded that the values satisfied convergentvalidityforeachmeasure(Igbaria
&Greenhaus,1992;Rainer&Harrison;
seeTable2).Wealsoexamineddiscriminant validity using the standardized
path coefficient details from the confirmatoryfactoranalysis.Theexamination compared the squared correlation
between each pair of measures (computed from the correlations estimated
in the confirmatory factor analysis) to
theiraveragepercentageofsharedvariances. Discriminant validity is satisfiedif,foreachmeasurepair,theaverage percentages of shared variance are
greater than the corresponding squared
correlation (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Thesesquaredcorrelationsrangedfrom
.00to.16.Becauseallthesquaredcorrelationsweresmallerthantheaverage
percentages of shared variances, discriminant validity was satisfied (Fornell&Larcker).Themeasuressatisfied
construct validity because satisfactory
discriminant validity is satisfied when
TABLE2.TheIndicants,Measures,andTheirPsychometricProperties
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
Measureandindicants
Standardizedpathcoefficient
Teamconflictexperience(α=.80;sharedvariance=67%)
Myteamhadnumerousdisagreementsorconflicts.
Myteamhaddivisivedisagreementsorconflicts.
Vicariousteamexperience(reliabilitycoefficient=.92;sharedvariance=79%)
Ilearnedhowtoresolvedisagreementsorconflictsfromotherteams.
Iobservedhowotherteamsresolveddisagreementsorconflicts.
Ilearnedbylisteningtootherteamsastheyresolvedtheirdisagreementsorconflicts.
Teammentorinfluence(reliabilitycoefficient=.90;sharedvariance=75%)
Amentorhelpedmyteamresolvedisagreementsorconflicts.
Amentorforcedtheteamtoacknowledgeandresolveourdisagreements.
Amentorencouragedustoresolveteamdisagreementsorconflicts.
Emotionalstateduringteamconflict(reliabilitycoefficient=.82;sharedvariance=70%)
Whenmyteamhadadisagreementorconflict,Ifelt...
...calm(or,nervous).
...confident(or,insecure).
Teammembersupport(reliabilitycoefficient=.84;sharedvariance=73%)
Whenourteamdisagreedorhadconflicts,weworkedtogethertoresolvethem.
Whenmyteamhaddisagreementsorconflicts,teammemberssupportedeachothertofindasolution.
Teamconflictself-efficacy(reliabilitycoefficient=.75;sharedvariance=60%)
Iknewhowtobringmyteamtoaresolutionofateamdisagreementorconflict.
Ihadverygoodskillstohelpmyteamresolveteamdisagreementsorconflicts.
Careeroutcomeexpectancy(reliabilitycoefficient=.87;sharedvariance=70%)
Byhelpingmyteamtoresolvedisagreementsorconflicts,Iam...
...morequalifiedtomorefirmswhenIgraduate.
...betterqualifiedforjobswhenIgraduate.
...qualifiedformorejobswhenIgraduate.
Currentteamoutcomeexpectancy(reliabilitycoefficient=.85;sharedvariance=73%)
Byhelpingmyteamtoresolvedisagreementsorconflicts,I...
...producedhigherqualityofworkonteamactivities.
...workedmoreefficientlyonteamactivities.
Behavioralintentionstouseteamskills(reliabilitycoefficient=.88;sharedvariance=72%)
Givenmyexperienceshelpingtoresolvedisagreementsorconflictsonthispastteam,Iintendto...
...moreactivelyworktoresolvedisagreements/conflictsonfutureteams.
...bemoreproactiveinresolvingdisagreements/conflictsonfutureteams.
...improvemyskillstoresolveteamdisagreements/conflicts.
coupledwithconvergentvalidity(Rainer&Harrison).
RESULTS
We statistically estimated the model
shown in Figure 1 by using a structural
equations approach. The measures were
reflectiveintheirindicants.Theantecedents of team conflict self-efficacy were
exogenous in the model and scaled by
setting their standard deviations to one.
We scaled the endogenous measures in
the model (i.e., team conflict self-efficacy,careeroutcomeexpectancy,current
teamoutcomeexpectancy,andbehavioral
intentionstouseteamskills)bysettingthe
path between one indicant and the measuretoone.Wecarriedouttheestimation
usingmaximumlikelihood.
Wesummarizethefitoftheestimated
modeltothedatainTable3.Thegood
ness-of-fit index was 0.86 (0.82 when
adjusted for degrees of freedom). The
root mean square residual was 0.08.
The Chi-square statistic was 243.08
with190degreesoffreedom(N=140),
whichwassignificantata1%level.The
normed Chi-square statistic was 1.28,
whereasBentler’scomparativefitindex
was 0.96. The incremental fit indexes
(i.e., Bentler and Bonett’s normed and
non-normed fit indexes and Bollen’s
normed and non-normed indexes)
ranged from 0.83 to 0.96. Although
thefitstatisticsweremixed,thevalues
were sufficient to conclude that the fit
between the model and the data was
acceptable(Hairetal.,1992).
The estimation of the model
showed that all the paths between
themeasuresandtheirindicantswere
significantata1%levelandweresufficientlylargetobemeaningful.This
0.78
0.86
0.89
0.90
0.87
0.85
0.84
0.91
0.91
0.75
0.98
0.71
0.79
0.76
0.89
0.78
0.83
0.90
0.81
0.89
0.84
0.81
suggested that we used the measurementsappropriately.
For H1–H5, we examined the paths
from antecedents to team conflict selfefficacy.TheresultdidnotsupportH1,
that team conflict experience would
leadtogreaterteamconflictself-efficacy.ResultssupportedH2,thatvicarious
team experience would lead to greater
team conflict self-efficacy, at the 1%
level. The path was also sufficiently
large to be meaningful. The result did
notsupportH3,thatteammentorinfluencewouldhaveasignificantandpositive impact on team conflict self-efficacy. It also did not support H4, that
the emotional state of a team member
duringteamconflictwouldhaveasignificant and positive impact on team
conflict self-efficacy. The result supported H5, that team member support
would have a significant and positive
May/June2007
261
TABLE3.SummaryStatisticsoftheFitoftheModelandtheData
supporting H8 and H9. The details of
theseresultsareinFigure2.
Statistic
DISCUSSION
Value
Goodness-of-fitindex
Adjustedgoodness-of-fitindex
Rootmeansquareresidual
Chi-squarestatistic
Degreesoffreedom
Normedchi-squarestatistic
Bentler’scomparativefitindex
BentlerandBonett’snon-normedfitindex
BentlerandBonett’snormedfitindex
Bollennormedindex
Bollennon-normedindex
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
*
0.86
0.82
0.08
243.08*
190
1.28
0.96
0.96
0.86
0.83
0.96
Significantatthe.01level.
impact on team conflict self-efficacy,
atthe1%level.Thispathwasalsosufficientlylargetobemeaningful.
Thepathsfromteamconflictself-efficacy to career outcome expectancy and
current team outcome expectancy were
1
2
0.92**
3
16
0.73**
**
0.90
**
0.87
0.78**
0.90#
0.42
**
0.28**
13
#
0.85**
Teammentor
influence
8
0.26**
0.01
Vicariousteam
experience
0.71
0.84**
0.83
0.77**
9
0.88**
Emotionalstate
duringteam
conflict
0.47**
**
0.81
0.24**
22
Currentteam
outcome
0.86#
0.88**
Teammember
support
Behavorial
intentionstouse
0.21**
10
11
0.88#
0.85**
**
14
0.18
20
21
Teamconflict
self-efficacy
−0.06
**
0.91
0.83**
Careeroutcome
expectancy
0.89**
6
7
17
15
Teamconflict
experience
4
5
statisticallysignificantandlargeenough
tobemeaningful,supportingH6andH7.
Inaddition,thepathsfrombothoutcome
expectancies to behavioral intentions to
useteamskillswerestatisticallysignificantandlargeenoughtobemeaningful,
The empirical results indicated that
vicarious team experience and team
membersupportpositivelyaffectbehavioralintentionsofstudents,touseteam
skills mediated by team conflict selfefficacy and the two outcome expectancies. The meaning of these results
is that students’ behavioral intentions
to use their team skills are influenced
by students observing or listening to
otherteamssolveconflictsandbyhavingasupportive,encouragingintrateam
environment. Behavioral intentions to
useteamskillsisanimportantvariable
because it suggests that the team skills
areviewedassufficientlyimportantby
studentstoactuallyuseinthefuture.
There are several implications for
instructors requiring team activities of
18
0.85**
19
0.79**
12
FIGURE2.Actualmodelrelatingteamconflictself-efficacytostudents’behavioralintentionstouseteamskillsand
results.**Significantat1%level.#Usedtoscalethecorrespondinglatentvariable.
262
JournalofEducationforBusiness
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
students. An apparent key to developing
behavioralintentionsofteamskillsinstudents is developing their perceptions of
teamconflictself-efficacyaswellastheir
outcome expectancies. On the basis of
theseempiricalresults,providingstudents
opportunitiestoobserveordiscussconflict
resolution experiences with other student
teamshelpsdevelopteamconflictself-efficacy.Instructorscanprovidetheseexperiencesbymatchingtwoormorecurrentstudentteamsformutualsupportandbehavior
modeling.Itmaybethecasethatstudents
who have already completed the course
andperformedsimilarteamactivitiescould
be matched with current student teams
to provide this support. Although Chen,
Donahue,andKlimoski(2004)foundthat
studentstakingateamskillscoursedidnot
increasetheirself-efficacyabouttheirabilitytobeeffectiveinteamwork,wefound
thatprovidingandsupportingteaminteractionsbothinsideandoutsideofclassmay
well improve students’ behavioral intentions through team conflict self-efficacy
andoutcomeexpectancy.
Ourresultsalsoindicatethatthrough
encouraging a supportive environment
within the team, instructors can help
thestudentsdevelopteamconflictselfefficacy. Instructors can encourage this
by providing structured experiences in
the team formation and development
processtostudents.Partoftheseexperiences can also be the explicit development of shared goals, expectations,
team values, and operational rules.
Another aspect to these experiences
would be the development of respect
forteammembers.Iftheseexperiences
develop a positive environment within
theteam,ithelpsdevelopteamconflict
self-efficacy among the team members
and ultimately affect students’ behavioralintentions.
Astheempiricalresultsindicated,team
conflictself-efficacypositivelyaffectsstudents’ behavioral intentions to use these
skills through the outcome expectancies.
Theseoutcomeexpectanciescanbeinfluencedbytheinstructorthroughimpressinguponstudentshowsuccessfullyworking in teams and developing team skills
willproducepositive,futureoutcomesin
theircurrentteamandtheirfuturecareer.
Thisencouragementcanbeintheformof
havingrecentgraduatesasguestspeakers
inclassesrelatingtheimportanceofteam
skillsforfuturecareerstostudents.These
activitieswillinfluencecareerandcurrent
teamoutcomeexpectancyandultimately
behavioral intentions to use team skills.
By positively affecting behavioral intentionstousetheseteamskills,theinstructors can help students to work in teams
anddevelopteamskills.
Threeofourpredictedantecedentsto
teamconflictself-efficacywerenotsignificant. Team conflict experience did
nothaveasignificantimpactonthestudents’ team conflict self-efficacy. Two
possible explanations for this are that
therewasasmallamountofvariationin
theamountofteamconflictexperienced
and the items themselves asked about
conflictexperience.Thesmallvariation
created a restricted range and reduced
ourabilitytoidentifytheimpactthatthe
variablemighthaveontheteamconflict
self-efficacy. Also, the wording of the
items did not ask for experience with
conflictresolution,butratherwithconflict.Wewouldmeasurethisdifferently
inourfutureresearch.Theitemswould
more appropriately measure students’
experience with successfully resolving
team conflict rather than experience
withteamconflict.
Theteammentorandemotionalstate
during team conflict variables did not
affectanindividual’steamconflictselfefficacy.Again, both of these variables
had relatively low statistical variation.
Also,teammentorsmayhavebeenperceived as instructing the students how
toresolveconflictratherthanencouraging them that they could resolve team
conflict.Researchersgenerallyfindthat
social persuasion influences self-efficacy,butthepersuasionisusuallyinthe
form of encouraging people that they
can do something. It is possible that
teammentorswerenotveryeffectiveat
helpingtheteammembersincreasetheir
beliefsthattheycouldresolveteamconflict.Theemotionalstate,orphysiologicalarousal,amongparticipantsbrought
verylittlestatisticalvariation.
DirectionsforFutureResearch
The examination of the theoretical
model is the first of several research
efforts. First, it would be worthwhile
to validate this basic model by using
adifferentsample.Inotherwords,are
these empirical results particular to
the sample drawn? In this context, it
would also be of interest to try different methods to encourage vicarious team experience and team member support and evaluate their relative
impacts on behavioral intentions. A
third research extension would be to
examine how this model affects not
behavioral intentions but actual team
performance.Teamperformancecould
bemeasuredperceptuallyorviaateam
grade or other outcome. The relationship between one’s experience with
teamconflictresolutionandone’steam
conflict self-efficacy needs further
investigation. An additional direction
forresearchwouldbetotestthebasic
model with a sample of business professionalswhoworkinteams.
Conclusion
We developed and empirically tested a model linking the antecedents of
team conflict self-efficacy to behavioralintentionstouseteamskills.The
results showed that vicarious team
experiencesandteammembersupport
affectbehavioralintentionsofstudents
to use team skills. These results are
encouraging because instructors can
manipulate and influence these antecedentsandultimatelystudents’behavioralintentions.
NOTE
Robert W. Stone (PhD, Purdue University)
is currently a professor of information systems
attheUniversityofIdaho.Histeachinginterests
are information systems, financial institutions,
and strategic management. His research interests
includeorganizationalandstrategyimpactsfrom
information system use and user acceptance of
informationsystems.
JeffreyJ.Bailey(Ph.D.,UniversityofAkron)
isaprofessorofmanagementandhumanresourcesattheUniversityofIdaho.Histeachinginterests are in human resource management, organizational behavior, and strategic management.
His research interests include decision-making
behaviorinretirementsaving,businessethics,and
methods and techniques for improving managementeducation.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. Jeffrey J. Bailey, Campus
Delivery3161,CollegeofBusinessandEconomics, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 838443161.
E–mail:jbailey@uidaho.edu
REFERENCES
Alper,S.,Tjosvold,D.,&Law,K.S.(2000).Conflictmanagement,efficacy,andperformancein
May/June2007
263
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:27 11 January 2016
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology,
53,625–642.
Bandura,A. (1977). Self-efficacy:Toward a unifyingtheoryofbehavioralchange.PsychologicalReview,84,191–215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in
human agency. American Psychologist, 37,
122–147.
Bandura,A.(1986).Socialfoundationofthought
and action: A social cognitive theory. New
Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
Baronas,A.K.,&Louis,M.R.(1988).Restoring
asenseofcontrolduringimplementation:How
user involvement leads to system acceptance.
MISQuarterly,12,111–123.
Buckenmyer,J.A.(2001).Usingteamsforclass
activities: Making course/classroom teams
work. Journal of Education for Business, 76,
98–107.
Burn,S.M.(2003).Groups:Theoryandpractice.
Toronto,Ontario,Canada:Wadsworth/ThompsonLearning.
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,46,823–850.
Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J.
(2004). Training undergraduates to work in
organizationalteams.AcademyofManagement
LearningandEducation,3(1),27–40.
Cohen,S.G.,&Bailey,D.E.(1997).Whatmakes
teamswork:Groupeffectivenessresearchfrom
theshopfloortotheexecutivesuite.Journalof
Management,23,239–290.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating
structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of
MarketingResearch,18,39–50.
Gardner, B. S., & Korth, S. J. (1999).A frameworkforlearningtoworkinteams.Journalof
EducationforBusiness,74,28–33.
Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, C. P.
(2000). Understanding group efficacy: An
empiricaltestofmultipleassessmentmethods.
Group & Organization Management, 25(1),
67–97.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy:Atheoreticalanalysisofitsdeterminants
and malleability. Academy of Management
Review,17,183–211.
Hair, J. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., &
Black,W.C.(1992).Multivariatedataanalysis
withreadings.NewYork:MacMillan.
Henry,J.W.,&Stone,R.W.(1999).Theeffectsof
computerself-efficacyandoutcomeexpectancy
on end-user job control and stress. Journal
of International Information Management, 8,
23–37.
Igbaria,M.,&Greenhaus,J.H.(1992).Determinants of MIS employee’s turnover intentions:
A structural equation model. Communications
oftheACM,35,35–49.
Ilgen,D.R.(1999).Teamsembeddedinorganizations.AmericanPsychologist,54,129–139.
Jones, G. R. (2004). Organizational theory,
design, and change, (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Martinko, M. J., Henry, J. W., & Zmud, R.W.
(1996).Anattributionalexplanationofindividualresistancetotheintroductionofinformation
technologies in the workplace. Behaviour &
InformationTechnology,15,313–330.
McKendall, M. (2000). Teaching groups to
becometeams.JournalofEducationforBusiness,75,277–282.
Meier,S.T.(1985).Computeraversion.ComputersinHumanBehavior,1,71–179.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Methods (2nd
ed).NewYork:McGrawHill.
Page,D.,&Donelan,J.G.(2003).Team-building
tools for students. Journal of Education for
Business,78,125–128.
Rainer, R. K., Jr., & Harrison, A. W. (1993).
Towarddevelopmentoftheendusercomputing
construct in a university setting. Decision SciencesJournal,24,1187–1202.
Rivard,S.,&Huff,S.(1988).Factorsofsuccess
forendusercomputing.Communicationsofthe
ACM,3,552–561.
Stone,R.W.,&Henry,J.W.(1998).Computer
self-efficacy and outcome expectations and
their impacts on behavioral intentions to
use computers in non-volitional settings.
JournalofBusinessandManagement,6(1),
45–58.
Stone,R.W.,&Henry,J.W.(2003).Therolesof
computerself-efficacyandoutcomeexpectancy
in influencing the computer end-user’s organizational commitment. Journal of End User
Computing,15(1),38–53.
Sundstrom,E.(1999).Thechallengesofsupporting work team effectiveness. In E. Sundstrom
& Associates (Eds.), Supporting work team
effectiveness: Best management practices for
fostering high performance (pp. 3–23). San
Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Tjosvold,D.(1991).Theconflict-positiveorganization.NewYork:Addison-Wesley.
APPENDIX
TeamSelf-Assessment
Pleaseanswerthefollowingquestionsregardingyourexperiencesworkingonateaminthepast.Thesequestionsaredesignedto
assessyourattitudes,feelings,andexperiencesofworkinginteamsaswellasforyoutobetterunderstandtherelationsamongthesefactorsandteamperformance.Allindividualresponsestothesequestionswillbestrictlyconfidential.Onlysummariesofresponsesacross
groupsofindividualswillbestudied,soindividualresponseswillnotberevealed.However,youmaychoosetosharetheinsightsyou
havegainedwithyourcurrentteammates.
Forallquestions,exceptinthelastsection,pleaserespondbycirclingthenumberthatbestrepresentsyouragreementordisagreementwiththecorrespondingstatement.Thescalesandweightstouseare:1=StronglyDisagree(SD),2=Disagree(D),3=Neither
AgreenorDisagree(N),4=Agree(A),and5=StronglyAgree(SA).
Considerateamonwhichyouhavebeenamemberinthepast(notateamthissemester).Thinkingaboutthisteam,answerthe
followingquestionsusingthescalesontheright.
SD
D
N
A
SA
1.Iworkedonateamthathaddisagreementsorconflictsamongitsmembers.
2.Iworkedonateamthatresolveddisagreementsorconflictsamongitsmembers.
3.Ihelpedmyteamresolvedisagreementsorconflicts.
4.Idevelopedskillsinresolvingteamdisagreementsorconflicts.
5.Iexperienceddisagreementsorconflictsseveraldifferenttimesonthisteam.
6.Isawmanydisagreementsorconflictsresolvedonthisteam.
7.Friendsonotherteamstoldmehowtheyresolvedteamdisagreementsorconflicts.
8.Ilearnedhowtoresolvedisagreementsorconflictsfromotherteams.
9.Iobservedhowotherteamsresolveddisagreementsorconflicts.
10.Ilearnedbylisteningtootherteamsastheyresolvedtheirdisagreementsorconflicts.
11.Ilearnedviathe“grapevine”howotherteamsresolvedtheirdisagreementsorconflicts.
12.Bylisteningtootherteams’experiences,Ilearnedhowmyteamcouldresolveitsdisagreements
orconflicts.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
(appendixcontinues)
264
JournalofEducationforBusiness
APPENDIX-Continued
1 3.Friendsnotonmyteamencouragedmetohelpresolvemyteam’sdisagreementsorconflicts.
14.Whenourteamdisagreedorh