Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship among Group Process Perceptions, Goal Commitment and Turnover Intention in Small Committee Groups

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study a series of hierarchical regression analyses were run to test a model examining the impact of perceived loafing, group potency and cohesion on goal commitment and turnover intention in small committee groups. Seventy-one full-time university faculty participated in the study. Results of this study suggest that an individual’s perception of their group plays an important role with respect to the level of commitment they have to their group goals and their intention to leave a group. The practical and theoretical implications of these results are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argote, L., Insko, C. A., Yoveitch, N., & Romero, A. A. (1995). Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 512–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1990). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 128–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayazit, M., & Mannix, E. A. (2003). Should I stay or should I go? Predicting team members’ intent to remain in the team. Small Group Research, 34, 390–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilimoria, D., & Pedirit, S. (1994). Qualifications of corporate board committee members. Group and Organization Management, 19, 334–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sports groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright, & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comer, D. R. (1995). A model of social loafing in real work groups. Human Relations, 48, 647–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., Streukens, S., & Ouwersloot, H. (2001). Perceived uncertainty in self-managed service teams: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12, 158–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, R., & Forsberg, C. P. (2002). Who decides? A look at ethics committee membership. HEC Forum, 14, 252–258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeZoort, F. T., Hermanson, D. R., Archambeault, D. S., & Reed, S. A. (2002). Audit committee effectiveness: A synthesis of the empirical audit committee literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 21, 38–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feltz, D. L., Bandura, A., Albrecht, R. R., & Corcoran, J. P. (1988). Perceived team efficacy in collegiate hockey. Psychology of motor behavior and sport – 1988: Abstracts. North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity.

  • Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 411–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 138–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group and Organization Management, 25, 67–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819–832.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, L., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 48–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal setting process: Problems, prospects and proposals for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., & Sellaro, C. L. (1984). The validity of Mobley’s 1997 model of employee turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 141–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati: South-Westem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houkes, I., Janssen, P. P. M., de Jonge, J., & Nijhuis, F. J. N. (2003). Specific relationships between work characteristics and intrinsic work motivation, burnout and turnover intention: A multi-sample analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and determents of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karau, S. J., & Hart, J. W. (1998). Group cohesiveness and social loafing: Effects of a social interaction manipulation on individual motivation within groups. Group Dynamics Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study on the influence of situational constraints, leader-member exchange and goal commitment on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., & Mulvey, P. W. (1995). The setting of goals in groups: An examination of processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 32–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., & Wright, P. M. (1994). Antecedents of goal commitment: An empirical examination of personal; and situational factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 24, 95–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuehl, C. R. (1977). Leader effectiveness in committee-like groups. The Journal of Business, 50, 223–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Joint effects of group efficacy under gender diversity on group cohesion and performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 136–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., Tinsley, C. H., & Bobko, P. (2002). Group-level confidence: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 1628–1652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of Management Review, 13, 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Group task satisfaction. Applying the construct of job satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 33, 271–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2003). Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small Group Research, 34, 413–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 62–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. (1994) Working together: Perceived self- and collective efficacy at the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paskevich, D. M., Brawley, L. R., Dorsch, K. D., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1999). Relationship between collective efficacy and team cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 210–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C. L., Gallagher, C. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2002). Confidence at the group level of analysis: A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Oragnizational Psychology, 75, 115–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2002). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 144–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins, D. G., & Gupta, N. (1998). An organizational-level analysis of voluntary and involuntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 511–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sillince, J. A. A. (2000). Rhetorical power, accountability and conflict in committees: An argumentation approach. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 1125–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangler, W. D., & Braiotta, L. (1990). Leadership and corporate audit committee effectiveness. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 134–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, D. G., Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1983). An empirical test of the inclusion of job search linkages into Mobley’s model of the turnover decision process. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spink, K. S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 301–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and postdecision accommodation processes. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 325–381). Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self-evaluation with a social standard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 891–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, T. (1998). Working with groups (2nd ed.). South Australia: MacMillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Nelson, J. B. (1999). Disaggregating the motives underlying turnover intentions: When do intentions predict turnover behavior? Human Relations, 52, 1313–1336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1990). The matching model: An examination of the processes underlying realistic job preview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 307–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation and adjustment: Theory, research and application (pp. 308–330). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia

    John W. Whiteoak

Authors
  1. John W. Whiteoak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John W. Whiteoak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Whiteoak, J.W. The Relationship among Group Process Perceptions, Goal Commitment and Turnover Intention in Small Committee Groups. J Bus Psychol 22, 11–20 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9047-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9047-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation