BUS603: Managing People

To improve our understanding of the dynamic nature of group potency, it is crucial to investigate its criterion-related validity and examine how group potency relates to team effectiveness. Meta-analytic research at both the individual- and team-level suggests strong, positive relations with performance. However, these results, as previously mentioned, are based on static research methods and do not take into consideration changes over time.

Within a time-limited project, group potency may function as a team-level resource that takes time to coalesce through consensus, but can be drawn upon by the team to influence effectiveness and the achievement of team tasks and goals. According to the COR theory, resources play an important role in understanding behavioral outcomes. Halbesleben et al. defined resources as "anything perceived by the individual to help attain his or her goal". Although defined at the individual level, this definition could easily be translated to the team context by defining a team resource as anything perceived by the members that can help the team attain its goal(s). This definition allows group potency to be considered a team-level resource that can be used to optimally influence team effectiveness. In this light, there are two key components of COR to consider: (1) initial resource losses lead to future resource losses, and (2) a greater amount of a resource can reduce the vulnerability to resource losses, as in a buffering effect. Concerning initial resource loss, Hobfoll et al. argued that resource loss begets stress, which leads to further resource loss. In support of this theorizing, research by Demerouti et al. demonstrated that resource loss (due to work pressure) leads to increased stress (i.e., work-life role conflict) in individuals, which then leads to further resource loss (i.e., exhaustion). Demerouti et al. (2004) referred to this phenomenon as a "loss spiral," which has also been reported by De Cuyper et al. and Whitman et al. Consistent with these findings, we anticipate that teams that are unable to conserve their potency resources over time will lose further resources over time, and experience worse team effectiveness. Concerning the buffering effect, Hobfoll et al. argued that individuals who have more resources are less likely to lose resources and are more likely to gain resources. For example, Hakanen et al. found that individuals with greater job resources were more engaged in their work, which led to increased innovativeness in their work group. Chen et al. also found that by boosting individuals' resources through training, they were more likely to adapt to changing work contexts and were less likely to experience resource loss (i.e., exhaustion). We therefore propose that teams that start with higher potency (i.e., initially have more potency resources than other teams) will perform better than teams that have lower initial potency. Together, we therefore hypothesize the following: