Personal and collective efficacy: Which matters more?

I really enjoyed the connection in Bandura (2000) about collective efficacy and politics. It got me thinking about the times when people have collective efficacy for a system, but do not personal efficacy about their role in it, or conversely do not have collective efficacy for a system but have personal efficacy for their part in it (i.e., there is a mismatch between personal and collective efficacy). Put another way: why do some people think the government will go on just fine and believe their vote does nothing, while others believe the political system is a hot mess, yet feel strongly that their voice and their vote matters? It seems in both of these situations that it is the personal efficacy (my voice/vote makes a difference) that matters more than the collective efficacy.  In the last presidential election in the U.S., only 58% of eligible voters went to the poles, and 65 percent of Americans believe our political system is dysfunctional. Thus there appear to be some differences in personal and collective efficacy. Yet some people seem to have little collective efficacy for the system, and yet a lot of personal efficacy that their voice matters. So, what happens when there is a mismatch between personal and collective efficacy? Does one matter more than the other in determining motivation and behavior?  If I believe my group will succeed on a project, but that there is little I can do to help, and thus disengage from the project it seems that my personal efficacy matters more. Similarly, if I believe I can do a task, but that as a whole my group will suck, I am likely to take on the whole task myself to get it done, again putting my personal efficacy ahead of collective efficacy. Thus, I am curious about what others think about how personal and collective efficacy interact in classroom settings and what that means for motivation and engagement.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy, 75–78.