Nolostcapital.com

௠ Academy of Management Journal2004, Vol. 47, No. 3, 368–384.
EMPLOYEES’ GOAL ORIENTATIONS, THE QUALITY OF
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE, AND THE OUTCOMES OF JOB
PERFORMANCE AND JOB SATISFACTION
ONNE JANSSEN
NICO W. VAN YPEREN
University of Groningen
As hypothesized, data from 170 employees of a Dutch firm showed that the quality of
leader-member exchange mediated positive relationships between a mastery orienta-
tion and leader-rated in-role job performance, leader-rated innovative job perfor-
mance, and job satisfaction. In contrast, a performance orientation was negatively
related or unrelated to those outcomes. These findings suggest that employees with
stronger mastery orientations are more effective on the job because they tend to
establish higher-quality exchanges with their supervisors.
Important and recurring questions in organiza- and maintain relationships with other actors in tional science are why employees perform well in their work context. According to leader-member their jobs and why they are satisfied with their jobs.
exchange (LMX) theory (for reviews, see Gerstner Achievement goal theory and research suggest that and Day [1997] and Graen and Uhl-Bien [1995]), employees’ job performance and job satisfaction each employee establishes a unique social ex- depend on their goal orientations (e.g., Farr, Hof- change relationship with his or her supervisor, and mann, & Ringenbach, 1993; Phillips & Gully, 1997; the quality of this leader-member exchange is gen- Van Yperen & Janssen, 2002). Goal orientations are erally found to be positively related to job perfor- believed to create different perceptual-cognitive frameworks for how individuals approach, inter- In the present study, we aimed to develop and pret, and respond to achievement situations (e.g., test the idea that goal orientations affect how em- Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Duda, 2001; Dweck, ployees develop and maintain social exchanges 1999; Pintrich, 2000; Van Yperen, 2003). Most at- with their supervisors. More specifically, we argue tention in the achievement goal tradition has been that mastery orientations cause employees to estab- given to two goal orientations: a mastery orienta- lish high-quality exchanges with their leaders, tion and a performance orientation. A mastery whereas performance orientations keep employees orientation focuses on developing competence, from establishing high-quality exchanges with their gaining skill, and doing one’s best, whereas a per- supervisors. In turn, the quality of leader-member formance orientation focuses on establishing one’s exchange helps employees to be effective on the job in terms of inrole performance, innovative per- To date, achievement goal research has been pre- formance, and satisfaction. Thus, we combined dominantly focused on exploring individual cogni- achievement goal theory and leader-member ex- tion, affect, and behavior related to task engage- change theory to propose that the interpersonal ment and task performance in individual task mechanism of leader-member exchange mediates settings (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Button, the relationships between employees’ goal orienta- Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Elliot, 1999; Farr et al., tions and the outcomes of job performance and job 1993; Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998; Phillips & Gully, 1997; Pintrich, 2000; Van Yperen,2003a). Surprisingly, little attention has been given THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
to the question of how goal orientations influenceindividuals in the way they interpret and respond In the following sections, we first discuss extant to the interpersonal context of achievement situa- theory and research concerning the relationships tions. In most work and organizational settings, between employees’ goal orientations, and job per- employees do not act in isolation but interact with formance and job satisfaction. We then consider colleagues, supervisors, or customers to perform how a mastery orientation and a performance ori- their job duties. Employees differing in goal orien- entation might differently influence employees in tations are likely to differ in the way they develop establishing exchange relationships with their su- pervisors. Finally, we theorize on how the quality viduals (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Elliot, 1999; of leader-member exchange facilitates employees’ Pintrich, 2000). Mastery goals were also bifurcated being effective and satisfied on the job.
into approach and avoidance versions (Elliot &McGregor, 2001; Van Yperen, 2003a). That is, indi-viduals endorsing mastery-avoidance goals strive Goal Orientations and the Outcomes of Job
to avoid deterioration, losing their skill, or leaving Performance and Job Satisfaction
a task incomplete or unmastered, whereas mastery- Goal orientations are viewed as rather stable per- approach goals are focused on the development of sonality characteristics fostered by “self-theories” competence through task mastery (Elliot & McGre- about the nature and development of attributes gor, 2001). As such, approach-oriented individuals (such as intelligence, personality, abilities, and tend to pursue beneficial outcomes, whereas avoid- skills) people have (Dweck, 1999). As such, a mas- ance-oriented employees tend to avert detrimental tery orientation stems from the belief that one’s outcomes. The four different types of goal orienta- attributes are dynamic and changeable and that tions—that is, mastery approach, mastery avoid- exerting effort leads to performance improvement, ance, performance approach, and performance while a performance orientation stems from the avoidance—appear to have different antecedents belief that attributes are fixed, concrete, and inter- and consequences (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001).
nal entities. Performance-oriented individuals tend However, the different types of goal orientations to believe that working hard does not lead to per- can coexist in a person, so that, for example, trying formance improvement. In their view, working to attain mastery is not necessarily inconsistent hard indicates low competence, and those who per- with striving to outperform others. Thus, people form poorly do not have the attributes necessary to vary in the extent to which they pursue each of the do well in their jobs (Dweck, 1999).
Early research relying on a dichotomous concep- Because we had no clear hypotheses regarding tualization of goal orientation repeatedly showed a the avoidance components of mastery and perfor- mastery orientation to be more beneficial for a wide mance orientations, we focused exclusively on the range of task performances than a performance ori- approach versions. That is, we developed and entation (e.g., Button et al., 1996; Farr et al., 1993; tested theory proposing that employees with mas- Ford et al., 1998; Phillips & Gully, 1997; Vande- tery-approach orientations are more effective on Walle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999). However, the job because of their tendency to establish high- recent achievement goal research suggests that a quality exchanges with their supervisors, whereas performance orientation may also have beneficial employees with performance-approach orienta- effects, particularly with regard to actual perfor- tions are less effective because they fail to establish mance. To clarify these opposite effects of perfor- exchanges of a high quality with their supervisors.
mance orientation, Elliot and his associates (e.g., For the remainder of this article, we restrict the use Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997) proposed a of the terms “mastery goal” and “performance goal” trichotomous conceptualization of achievement to the approach versions of these goal orientations.
goals by bifurcating performance orientation into a As it stands now, achievement goal theory sug- performance-approach orientation and a perfor- gests that both mastery-oriented and performance- mance-avoidance orientation (cf. VandeWalle, oriented individuals are strongly motivated to meet 1997). They argued that performance-oriented in- their respective performance standards. However, dividuals can be motivated either to “outperform” in work and organizational settings, mastery-ori- others and to demonstrate their superiority, or to ented and performance-oriented employees may avoid failure and to avoid looking incompetent, differ in the aspects of job performance they focus respectively. The finding that a performance- on. Job performance is a broad and complex con- approach orientation is associated with superior struct comprising two fundamentally different as- performance (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; pects, namely, in-role job performance mandated Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, by an organization, and more spontaneous innova- Carter, Letho, & Elliot, 1997) suggests that individ- tive work behaviors (Katz, 1964). So far as we uals with performance-approach orientations tend know, no research has been conducted to answer to exert sufficient effort to accomplish their goal of the question of how the different goal orientations outperforming others. The tendency to reduce ef- relate to these fundamentally different aspects of fort after encountering setbacks and difficulty often associated with performance orientations (e.g., In-role job performance can be defined as actions Duda, 2001; Dweck, 1999) seems to be more char- specified and required by an employee’s job de- acteristic of performance-avoidance-oriented indi- scription and thus mandated, appraised, and re- warded by the employing organization. These sets tion is an especially complex and challenging task of rules and procedures make work behavior pre- encompassing a broad variety of cognitive and so- dictable so that basic organizational tasks can be cial activities, such as generating, promoting, dis- coordinated and controlled in order to achieve or- cussing, modifying, and ultimately implementing ganizational goals. The proficiency with which em- creative ideas (Kanter, 1988). Moreover, innovative ployees carry out their work activities and work job performance concerns the development and ap- roles appears to be an important individual source plication of something new for which the requisite of variation in job performance (Borman & Motow- knowledge and strategies have yet to be learned.
idlo, 1993; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Be- Research has shown that a mastery goal focuses an cause a mastery orientation creates a tendency to individual’s attention on the elaboration and devel- improve proficiency on the job and to persist effec- opment of new knowledge and deep processing tively in the face of obstacles (cf. Dweck, 1999), strategies leading to effectiveness in complex and mastery-oriented employees can be expected to unfamiliar tasks (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Fisher & meet or even exceed their organization’s standards Ford, 1998; Steele-Johnson et al., 2000; Winters & for in-role job performance. However, we also ex- pected that performance goal orientations would Second, mastery-oriented employees have per- motivate employees to perform well with respect to sonal and intrinsic interest in the tasks they per- in-role task requirements. A performance goal re- form (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Elliot, 1999; flects the desire to demonstrate superior compe- Pintrich, 2000; Van Yperen, 2003a). Creativity is tence to others. As such, employees with perfor- evoked by the pleasure provided by the tasks them- mance orientations tend to perceive in-role job selves, and the innovation literature emphasizes requirements as competitive standards that moti- that this intrinsic aspect of work motivation is an vate them to exert effort in order to outperform essential motivational base for performing innova- others and to obtain favorable competence judg- tive activities (e.g., Amabile, 1988; Redmond, ments from their organization’s appraisal and re- Mumford, & Teach, 1993). According to Amabile ward systems. Moreover, performance goal orienta- (1985, 1988), intrinsic motivation affects innova- tions have been argued to cause employees to tiveness by influencing the likelihood that alterna- rehearse job components and skills until they re- tive—and potentially more innovative—response quire little attention and can be performed auto- possibilities will be explored during task engage- matically in a very efficient and effective manner (Steele-Johnson, Beauregard, Hoover, & Schmidt, Third, when obstacles such as demanding task 2000). Accordingly, the following hypotheses were difficulties are encountered, mastery-oriented em- ployees tend to deal with these challenging circum-stances by putting more effort into their jobs Hypothesis 1. A mastery orientation is posi- (Dweck, 1999; Farr et al., 1993). As has already tively related to in-role job performance. been mentioned above, innovation requires a broad Hypothesis 2. A performance orientation is variety of cognitive and sociopolitical efforts from positively related to in-role job performance. individual innovators (e.g., Kanter, 1988). More-over, innovation involves change that may give rise An organization has to find the right balance to resistance because of the insecurity and uncer- between using rules and procedures to make work tainty it may bring (Frost & Egri, 1991; Janssen, performance predictable and giving employees the 2003; Jones, 2001). Hence, innovative employees freedom to spontaneously innovate to adapt to are likely to meet resistance from other workers in problems, opportunities, and unusual situations their work environment who want to prevent inno- (cf. Jones, 2001; Katz, 1964). Innovative job perfor- vative change. Convincing those workers of the mance can be defined as the intentional generation, benefits of innovation can be difficult and demand- promotion, and realization of new ideas within a ing. Mastery-oriented employees are likely to cope work role, work group, or organization in order to effectively with such difficulties by putting sub- benefit role performance, a group, or an organiza- stantial effort into the job of innovation in order to tion (e.g., Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994; West & identify and apply the strategies needed to succeed Farr, 1989). A mastery goal orientation can be ex- (cf. Dweck, 1999; Farr et al., 1993).
pected to be an important motivational source for In contrast with a mastery goal orientation, a innovative job performance for several reasons.
performance orientation might be less beneficial for First, individuals pursuing mastery goals have a innovative behaviors on the job. Fisher and Ford preference for challenging and complex tasks (1998) found that performance orientations cause (Ames & Archer, 1988; VandeWalle, 1997). Innova- individuals to rehearse task strategies and familiar task components until they become rapid and au- is in itself indicative of success (Duda, 2001; tomatic. Such a focus on practicing job components Dweck, 1999). In contrast, performance-oriented can interfere with innovation and learning as indi- individuals believe that working hard signifies low viduals possess a fixed number of attentional re- ability, which makes them uncertain about their sources that can be allocated to a variety of job capacities to meet their competitive standards (cf.
components (e.g., Steele-Johnson et al., 2000). Per- Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Van Yperen & Janssen, formance-oriented employees tend to devote their 2002). Furthermore, mastery-oriented individuals attention to surface processing (Elliot & McGregor, have predominantly internal loci of perceived con- 2001; Elliot et al., 1999) and practicing in-role job trol and causality (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988), components that may help them to outperform oth- whereas performance-oriented individuals typi- ers. This focus on surface processing and practicing cally evaluate task performance on the basis of in-role job components further refines and estab- social comparison criteria that appear to them to be lishes the existing framework for doing things and largely outside their personal control (cf. Button et is likely to prevent employees from devoting atten- al., 1996; Elliot, 1999; Farr et al., 1993; Philips & tional resources to developing innovative ideas for Gully, 1997). The work stress literature has shown that a lack of control is accompanied by negative Furthermore, performance-oriented employees affective outcomes, especially when task require- have an extrinsic work motivation in the sense that ments are high (e.g., Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Van they tend to define success on the job primarily in Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003). Hence, we hypothe- terms of outperforming others and demonstrating sized that a mastery orientation is positively related superiority. The task of innovation, however, is an to job satisfaction, whereas a negative relationship uncertain and controversial endeavour. That is, the was expected between performance orientation and process and outcomes of innovation are unpredict- able, as progress comes in spurts among unforeseen Hypothesis 5. A mastery orientation is posi- delays, setbacks, and costs (e.g., Kanter, 1988).
tively related to job satisfaction. Moreover, innovation poses a threat to vested in-terests and alternative courses of action and, there- Hypothesis 6. A performance orientation is fore, often leads to political problems and failure negatively related to job satisfaction. (Frost & Egri, 1991; Kanter, 1988). As a conse-quence, employees with performance orientations Goal Orientations and the Quality of Leader-
may tend to keep away from innovation because Member Exchange
innovative tasks imply the risk of failure, whichwould demonstrate their inferiority rather than the Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory and re- search suggest that the quality of the exchanges that This line of reasoning about the relationship be- develop between employees and their leaders are tween goal orientation and innovative job perfor- predictive of performance-related and attitudinal job outcomes, especially for employees (Gerstner &Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). LMX theory is Hypothesis 3. A mastery orientation is posi- unique among leadership theories in its focus on tively related to innovative job performance. the dyadic exchange relationships between super- Hypothesis 4. A performance orientation is visors and each of their subordinates (Gerstner & negatively related to innovative job perfor- Day, 1997). High-quality exchange relationships are characterized by mutual trust, respect, and ob-ligation that generate influence between an em- With regard to the affective outcome of job satis- ployee and his or her supervisor. Low-quality faction, achievement goal research demonstrates exchange relationship, on the other hand, are char- that mastery-oriented individuals derive more sat- acterized by formal, role-defined interactions and isfaction and enjoyment from their efforts to reach predominantly contractual exchanges that result in their goals than performance-oriented individuals hierarchy-based downward influence and distance (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Elliot, 1999; Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Pintrich, 2000; Van Goal orientations may influence how employees Yperen & Janssen, 2002). When increased task re- approach, interpret, and establish their relation- quirements are encountered, mastery-oriented in- ships with their supervisors. Employees with mas- dividuals direct extra effort to a task itself. They tery goal orientations strive to develop their com- tend to view exerting great effort as a desirable petence, skills, and ability. Given this focus, attribute of the self so that, for them, exerting effort supervisors should be of interest as valuable sources of work-related knowledge, information, nomic exchange behaviors and social-emotional and experience that can provide employees with distance between the exchange parties (cf. Graen & prospects for skill development and self-improve- Uhl-Bien, 1995; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999).
ment. Therefore, mastery-oriented employees may This theorizing on goal orientations’ influence on tend to frequently seek social exchanges with their how employees establish social exchanges with leaders in order to discuss and learn how to better their supervisors led to the following hypotheses: deal with emerging problems and opportunitieswhen performing their jobs. These exchange inter- Hypothesis 7. A subordinate’s mastery orien- actions may help employees to succeed in their tation is positively related to the quality of goal of improving ability and skill.
Furthermore, given mastery-oriented employees’ Hypothesis 8. A subordinate’s performance intrinsic work motivation and willingness to work orientation is negatively related to the quality hard, supervisors may provide these employees with support, decision latitude, and freedom sothat they can initiate, control, and carry out theirtasks without excessive supervision. In turn, em- Leader-Member Exchange as an Intermediate
ployees may reciprocate by working hard, doing Interpersonal Mechanism
extra tasks needed for performance improvement,and performing spontaneous and innovative extra- Finally, we expected to find that the quality of role behaviors going beyond contractual expecta- leader-member exchange is an interpersonal mech- tions (e.g., Basu & Green, 1997; Howell & Hall- anism that mediates the relationships between goal Merenda, 1999; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Wayne, orientation, and job performance and job satisfac- Shore, & Liden, 1997). As such, exchanges between tion. As argued above, mastery orientations cause mastery-oriented employees and their supervisors employees to establish high-quality exchanges with are likely to develop to high levels. That is, they their leaders, providing them with opportunities can count on each other for support and loyalty, for skill development and self-improvement. This share important informational and behavioral re- proficiency development may help employees to sources, and base the exchange process on mutual trust, respect, and obligation (cf. Graen & Uhl-Bien, Furthermore, innovative workers depend on 1995; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999).
their supervisors for the information (data, exper- In contrast, employees with performance goal tise, political intelligence), resources (materials, orientations strive to outperform others and to space, time), and social-political support (endorse- demonstrate superiority. Given this focus, they ment, legitimacy, backing) necessary to develop, may perceive supervisors as threats, as their higher protect, and apply their innovative ideas (Kanter, rank suggests that their attributes (such as intelli- 1988). As outlined above, mastery-oriented em- gence and abilities) are superior to those of the ployees are likely to receive these resources and subordinate employees. Moreover, performance- support because they tend to develop high-quality oriented employees tend to believe that the at- exchange relationships with their supervisors.
tributes people have are fixed and primarily a prod- Prior research has found that such a high quality of leader-member exchange is predictive of innova- Consequently, such employees may see little tive job performance (e.g., Basu & Green, 1997; possibility of ever showing superior competence in their relationships with their supervisors. In ex- The support and autonomy that supervisors may changes with their supervisors, they will always be provide to mastery-oriented employees may also confronted, by definition, with their own inferior- lead to higher levels of job satisfaction. Employees ity. Therefore, employees with performance orien- who feel a sense of self-determination on the job tations may prefer to restrict their interactions with see themselves as the origin of and responsible for their supervisors to the necessary economic ex- work actions and are, therefore, more likely to ex- change behaviors required and mandated by their perience intrinsic rewards and satisfaction from formal employment contracts. Given their extrinsic work (cf. Deci & Ryan, 1985). Moreover, the support work motivation and meaning systems (Dweck, and backing of a supervisor can help employees to 1999), supervisors might be less willing to provide overcome work-related problems and, therefore, performance-oriented employees with decision lat- contribute to their job satisfaction. Indeed, previ- itude and autonomy for carrying out their tasks.
ous research has consistently indicated that higher- Thus, leader-member exchanges are likely to be quality levels of leader-member exchange produce formal and impersonal and characterized by eco- higher levels of job satisfaction among employees (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Green, Anderson, & Sample and Procedures
This line of reasoning on the interpersonal mech- anism of leader-member exchange led to the fol- The relationships between goal orientations, leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of jobperformance and job satisfaction were examined in Hypothesis 9. Leader-member exchange medi- a field study conducted in a division of a Dutch ates the positive relationship between a subor- energy supplier. The data were collected as part of dinate’s mastery orientation and in-role job a more general survey of job-related attitudes and job performance among nonmanagement lower-level employees. These employees performed a Hypothesis 10. Leader-member exchange me- wide range of different jobs in different functions, diates the positive relationship between a sub- including customer service, meter reading, front ordinate’s mastery orientation and innovative office work, back office work, invoicing, collection, accounting, and call center work. Meetings were Hypothesis 11. Leader-member exchange me- scheduled to inform the employees about the gen-eral purpose of the study, to emphasize confiden- diates the positive relationship between a sub- tiality, and to administer questionnaires. All 288 ordinate’s mastery orientation and job satisfac- employees were asked to participate in the research and received questionnaires, which were filled outduring work time and returned via the internal mail Similarly, low-quality leader-member exchange may play a mediating role in the relationship be- Of the 288 employees who received question- tween a performance orientation and innovative naires, 187 responded by providing “self-reports” job performance. That is, in low-quality exchange of their goal orientations, leader-member exchange, relationships, employees cannot count on their su- and job satisfaction, resulting in a response rate of pervisors for the extra support and backing needed 65 percent. Since supervisors played a pivotal part to move potentially innovative ideas into reality.
in appraisal and rewards systems, the employees’ This anticipated lack of support can be expected to job performance was rated by their immediate su- reinforce the tendency of performance-oriented pervisors (n ϭ 14), who filled out a questionnaire employees to keep away from risky innovative ac- that assessed the in-role and innovative job perfor- tivities. In addition, the low levels of support and mance of their subordinates. Supervisor ratings autonomy received from their supervisors may were obtained for 170 of the 187 respondents in the clarify why performance-oriented employees expe- rience relatively low job satisfaction. These argu- Of this final sample of 170 respondents, 75 per- cent were male. Their ages ranged from 19 to 61years, averaging 44.09 years (s.d. ϭ 9.52). The or- Hypothesis 12. Leader-member exchange me- ganizational tenure of the participants ranged from diates the negative relationship between a sub- less than 1 year to 41 years, and their average ten- ordinate’s performance orientation and inno- ure was 19.32 years (s.d. ϭ 10.49).
Hypothesis 13. Leader-member exchange me- Measures
diates the negative relationship between a The items comprising the scales described gen- subordinate’s performance orientation and job erally below are detailed in the first two tables, in Goal orientations. Individual differences in goal
Because of the low-quality exchanges between orientation were assessed by administering scales performance-oriented employees and their supervi- for measuring mastery and performance goal orien- sors, performance-oriented employees can be ex- tation developed by Van Yperen (e.g., Van Yperen pected to use sources other than leader-member & Janssen, 2002). The subjects responded to the exchange to perform in-role job duties well. As question “I feel most successful in my job when noted earlier, performance orientations may cause . . . ,” after which they judged 11 mastery and 8 employees to rehearse components and skills until performance orientation items. Responses were they require little attention and can be performed provided on a seven-point scale ranging from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 7, “strongly agree.” The scales achieved high levels of internal reliability, .90 for mastery orientation and .91 for performance Response Bias
Quality of leader-member exchange. This vari-
From the initial sample of 187 respondents, 17 able was assessed using seven items based on the were excluded as a result of missing supervisor member versions of leader-member exchange ques- ratings, leading to a final sample of 170 respon- tionnaires developed and used in prior research dents. To test whether the included respondents (e.g., Liden & Graen, 1980; Scandura & Graen, 1984; systematically differed from the excluded respon- Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Respondents indi- dents with respect to their scores on goal orienta- cated the extent to which the items characterized tion, leader-member exchange, and job satisfaction, the quality of their exchange relationships with we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA). The results of the MANOVA did not their supervisors (1, “to a very low extent,” to 7, “to demonstrate significant differences, minimizing concern about potential sampling bias.
Job performance. We measured in-role job per-
formance using Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1989)five-item scale for in-role job performance. The im- Exploratory Factor Analyses
mediate supervisors of the respondents indicatedthe extent to which they agreed or disagreed with Before testing the hypotheses, we conducted two five statements about the quality and quantity of exploratory factor analyses in order to get some the respondents’ in-role activities (1, “strongly dis- evidence for the measures’ discriminant validity.
agree,” to 7, “strongly agree”; ␣ ϭ .85).
First, the items of the self-reported measures of Innovative job performance was assessed using mastery orientation, performance orientation, lead- Janssen’s (2000, 2001) nine-item scale of individual er-member exchange, and job satisfaction were sub- innovation in the workplace, which draws on mitted to a principal components analysis with Kanter’s (1988) work on the stages of innovation.
oblique rotation. As can be seen in Table 1, fourfactors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1, Three items refer to idea generation, three items to accounting for 61.84 percent of the variance. Each idea promotion, and the remaining three to idea item “loaded” on its appropriate factor, with pri- realization. Immediate supervisors rated how often mary loadings exceeding .44 and cross-loadings the subjects performed the nine innovative work lower than .33. Second, the items of the job perfor- behaviors in the workplace (1, “never,” to 7, “al- mance measures rated by the respondents’ supervi- ways”). A high reliability was achieved for the in- sors were submitted to a principal components novative job performance scale (␣ ϭ .98).
analysis with oblique rotation. As is shown in Ta- Job satisfaction. Satisfaction on the job was
ble 2, the two factors that emerged appropriately measured using a five-item scale developed by represented the in-role and innovative job perfor- Bacharach, Bamberger, and Conley (1991). This mance items, whereby primary loadings exceeded general job satisfaction scale “emphasizes the .68 while cross-loadings were lower than .34. The match between expectations and perceived real- two factors had eigenvalues greater than 1 and ac- ity for broad aspects of the job taken as a whole” counted for 83.51 percent of the variance.
(Bacharach et al., 1991: 45). Appropriate to thecontext of this study, this operational definitionof job satisfaction allowed us to examine the ex- Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
tent to which employees’ goal orientations on the Means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pear- job were related to the fulfilment of their job son correlations among all variables in this study expectations. The subordinates responded to the are presented in Table 3. As expected, mastery question “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you orientation appeared to be positively correlated to with . . .” (1, “very dissatisfied,” to 7, “very sat- the mediating variable of leader-member exchange isfied”; ␣ ϭ .88), after which they judged five and to the outcome variables of in-role job perfor- mance, innovative job performance, and job satis- Covariates. To control for the possibility that
faction. However, no significant zero-order correla- sociodemographic differences in the predictor and tions were found between performance orientation outcome variables might lead to spurious relation- and the mediating and outcome variables. As pre- ships, gender (1, “male,” 2, “female”), age (in dicted, leader-member exchange was positively re- years), and organizational tenure (in years) were lated to both in-role and innovative job perfor- entered as covariates in the analyses.
Results of Principal Components Analysis of Mastery Orientation, Performance Orientation, Leader-
Member Exchange, and Job Satisfactiona
Mastery orientation
I feel successful on my job when . . .
I acquire new knowledge or learn a new skill by trying hard.
I acquire new knowledge or master a new skill which was difficult for me in the past.
I learn something that motivates me to continue.
I learn something that makes me want to practice more.
I learn something new that is fun to do.
I master new knowledge or a new skill.
Performance orientation
I feel successful on my job when . . .
I perform better than my colleagues.
I can clearly demonstrate that I am the best qualified person.
I accomplish something where others failed.
I am clearly the most productive employee.
I am the only one who knows about particular things or who has a particular skill.
Leader-member exchange
My supervisor would be personally inclined to help me solve problems in my work.
My working relationship with my supervisor is effective.
I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would defend and justify his/her decisions if he or she were not present to do so.
My supervisor considers my suggestions for change.
My supervisor and I are suited to each other.
My supervisor understands my problems and needs.
My supervisor recognizes my potential.
Job satisfaction
How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with . . .
The progress you are making toward the goals you set for yourself in your present Your present job in light of your career expectations.
Your present job when you compare it to jobs in other organizations.
The chance your job gives you to do what you are best at.
Your present job when you consider the expectations you had when you took the job.
a Items are quoted from our survey. Boldface indicates a significant loading.
Test of the Hypothesized Model
trol for relationships with goal orientation, leader- Hierarchical regression analyses consisting of member exchange, job performance, and job two successive steps were conducted to test Hy- satisfaction. In the second step, we included mas- potheses 1– 8. In the first step, the sociodemo- tery and performance orientation to test their hy- graphic variables were entered as covariates to con- pothesized effects on the mediating and outcome Results of Principal Components Analysis of In-Role and Innovative Job Performancea
In-role job performance
This worker always completes the duties specified in his/her job description.
This worker meets all the formal performance requirements of the job.
This worker fulfills all responsibilities required by his/her job.
This worker never neglects aspects of the job that he/she is obligated to perform.
This worker often fails to perform essential dutiesb Innovative job performance
How often does this worker perform the following work activities?
Searching out new working methods, techniques, or instruments Transforming innovative ideas into useful applications Generating original solutions to problems Introducing innovative ideas in a systematic way Making important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas Thoroughly evaluating the application of innovate ideas a Boldface indicates a significant loading. Items are quoted from our survey.
b Reversed.
Univariate Statistics and Pearson Correlations among the Variablesa
Variable
a Correlations above .16 are significant at the .05 level, and those above .19 are significant at the .01 level. Tests of significance were variables. For all the regression equations reported found in the normal probability plots of standard- below, we checked the underlying model assump- tions. By comparing the standardized residuals As shown in Table 4, a mastery orientation was with the predicted values, we detected nine outli- positively related to the outcome variables of in- ers (outside three standard deviations) for in-role role job performance, innovative job performance, job performance and three outliers for job satisfac- and job satisfaction (see step 2 of the regression tion. These outliers were left out of the respective equations). These findings were in line with Hy- regression analyses reported below. It is notewor- potheses 1, 3, and 5, respectively. Furthermore, as thy that additional analyses showed that the outli- Hypothesis 7 predicts, a mastery orientation was ers’ inclusion did not meaningfully change the re- found to be positively related to the mediating vari- sults and interpretations. No major violations were able of leader-member exchange. Contrary to Hy- Results of Regression Analysesa
In-Role Job Performance
Innovative Job Performance
Job Satisfaction
Exchange
Step and Variables
a Standardized regression coefficients are reported for the respective regression steps, including sociodemographics (step 1), socio- demographics and goal orientations (step 2), and sociodemographics, goal orientations, and leader-member exchange (step 3). For theregression of in-role job performance, n was 161. For innovative job performance and leader-member exchange, n was 170. For jobsatisfaction, n was 167.
† p Ͻ .05 (one-tailed test)* p Ͻ .05 (two-tailed test) potheses 2 and 4, a performance orientation was change as a mediator had a significant, unique ef- found to be negatively related to in-role job per- fect on all three outcome variables. With respect to formance and unrelated to innovative job perfor- performance orientation, the regression coefficients mance. In line with Hypotheses 6 and 8, a perfor- only slightly decreased from Ϫ.26 (p Ͻ .01) in the mance orientation was negatively related to job second step to Ϫ.22 (p Ͻ .01) in the third step for satisfaction and leader-member exchange.
in-role job performance, and from Ϫ.13 (p Ͻ .05) Furthermore, the quality of leader-member ex- to Ϫ .09 (n.s.) for job satisfaction when we added change was hypothesized to mediate the effects of leader-member exchange to the models.
goal orientation on job performance and job satis- Finally, to test whether the effect of goal orienta- faction. Under the guidelines provided by Baron tion significantly decreased upon the addition of and Kenny (1986), mediation is indicated if the leader-member exchange, we performed the Sobel effect of the independent variable (here, goal orien- test (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Sobel, 1982). This test tation) on the outcome variable (job performance revealed that leader-member exchange mediated and job satisfaction) substantially decreases upon the positive effects of mastery orientation on in-role the addition of the mediator (leader-member ex- job performance (Z ϭ 2.71, p Ͻ .01), innovative job change) to the model, while the mediator has a performance (Z ϭ 2.84, p Ͻ .01), and job satisfac- significant, unique effect on the outcome variable.
tion (Z ϭ 2.74, p Ͻ .01). Thus, these results pro- To test this mediation model, we added a third vided full support for Hypotheses 9, 10, and 11.
step, containing leader-member exchange, to the Leader-member exchange was not found to be a regression analyses of the outcome variables. As is significant mediator in the relationship between shown in Table 4, when leader-member exchange performance orientation and in-role job perfor- was added to the models, the regression coeffi- mance (Z ϭ Ϫ1.45, n.s.). Furthermore, since perfor- cients of the relationships between mastery orien- mance orientation was not significantly related to tation and the outcome variables decreased from the outcome variable of innovative job perfor- .33 (p Ͻ .001) in the second step to .24 (p Ͻ .01) in mance, the results provided no support for Hypoth- the third step for in-role job performance, from .19 esis 12, predicting leader-member exchange to be a (p Ͻ .05) to .09 (n.s.) for innovative job perfor- mediator variable in the negative effect of perfor- mance, and from .35 (p Ͻ .001) to .26 (p Ͻ .001) for mance orientation on innovative job performance.
job satisfaction. Moreover, although the effect of Finally, in line with Hypothesis 13, leader-member mastery orientation decreased, leader-member ex- exchange mediated the negative relationship be- tween performance orientation and job satisfaction the case of a strong mastery orientation, relatively (Z ϭ Ϫ1.80, p Ͻ .05, one-tailed test).
high levels of in-role job performance were ob-tained regardless of the strength of an individual’sperformance orientation (b ϭ Ϫ.05, n.s.). However, Supplementary Analyses
when mastery orientation was weak, performance The modest correlation between mastery and orientation had a negative relationship with in-role performance orientations (r ϭ .33, p Ͻ .001) indi- job performance (b ϭ Ϫ.24, p Ͻ .001). These find- cates that trying to attain mastery is not necessarily ings signify that mastery and performance orienta- inconsistent with striving to outperform others. By tions interacted in such a way that a strong mastery implication, a mastery and a performance goal ori- orientation was needed to buffer the negative effect entation might interact in their effects. Therefore, of a performance orientation on in-role job perfor- we conducted additional hierarchical regression mance (cf. Van Yperen & Janssen, 2002). These analyses to detect possible interactions. These re- additional results contradicted Hypothesis 2, gressions consisted of three steps. After controlling which predicts a positive relationship between per- for the sociodemographic variables in step 1 and formance orientation and in-role job performance.
the “main effects” of the goal orientations in step 2, In this article, goal orientations are viewed as we added the third step, which involved the cross- rather stable personality characteristics that may product term of mastery and performance orienta- influence employees in the way they establish ex- tion, in order to detect interactive effects. To min- change relationships with their leaders. However, imize problems of multicollinearity and facilitate alternatively, the quality of leader-member ex- interpretation, we centered the predictor variables change might be a contextual factor that can impact before calculating the cross-product term and re- the goal orientations of employees. Therefore, we gression statistics (Aiken & West, 1991). The anal- conducted a series of regression analyses to test yses showed that mastery and performance orien- alternative path models in which mastery and per- tations did not interact in their effects on leader- formance orientations mediated the effects of member exchange (⌬R2 ϭ .01, n.s.), innovative job leader-member exchange on the outcome variables.
performance (⌬R2 ϭ .01, n.s.), and job satisfaction After controlling for the sociodemographic vari- (⌬R2 ϭ .01, n.s.). However, we found an interactive ables in the first step, we found that leader-member effect of mastery and performance orientations on exchange was positively related to in-role job per- in-role job performance (⌬R2 ϭ .03, b ϭ .11, p Ͻ formance (⌬R2 ϭ .13, b ϭ .37, p Ͻ .001), innovative .05). To interpret this interaction effect, we re- job performance (⌬R2 ϭ .10, b ϭ .32, p Ͻ .001), and arranged the total regression equation into simple job satisfaction (⌬R2 ϭ .12, b ϭ .35, p Ͻ .001). When regressions of in-role job performance on perfor- mastery orientation and performance orientation mance orientation, given conditional values of were added to the equations, the regression coeffi- mastery orientation (mean ϩ 1 s.d.; mean Ϫ 1 s.d.; cients of the relationships between leader-member cf. Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Figure 1, in exchange and the outcome variables declined only Effects of Interaction of Performance and Mastery Orientation on In-Role Job Performance
modestly, from .37 (p Ͻ .001) to .30 (p Ͻ .001) for DISCUSSION
in-role job performance, from .32 (p Ͻ .001) to .30 In this study, we developed and tested the idea (p Ͻ .001) for innovative job performance, and from that a mastery orientation helps an employee to .35 (p Ͻ .001) to .28 (p Ͻ .001) for job satisfaction.
establish a high-quality exchange with his or her Additional Sobel tests indicated that neither a mas- leader, while a performance orientation hinders tery (Z ϭ 1.11, n.s.) nor a performance orientation leader-member exchange of a high quality. In turn, (Z ϭ Ϫ0.05, n.s.) mediated the relationship be- the quality of leader-member exchange was as- tween leader-member exchange and innovative job sumed to clarify why employees with stronger mas- tery orientations are more effective on the job than Furthermore, performance orientation had no those with stronger performance orientations. As significant mediation effects in the regressions of expected, the present survey results revealed that in-role job performance (Z ϭ 0.22, n.s.) and job a mastery orientation was positively related to in- satisfaction (Z ϭ 0.57, n.s.). Only mastery orienta- role job performance, innovative job performance, tion was found to be a modest mediator in the and job satisfaction, and that the quality of leader- relationships between leader-member exchange member exchange mediated these relationships.
and the outcome variables of in-role job perfor- In contrast, their performance goal orientations mance (Z ϭ 2.19, p Ͻ .05) and job satisfaction (Z ϭ led employees to establish low-quality social ex- 2.47, p Ͻ .05). This pattern of results indicated that changes with their supervisors. A lower quality the alternative model, in which leader-member ex- of leader-member exchange was associated with change is the independent variable and goal orien- lower levels of in-role and innovative job perfor- tation is the mediator variable, was inferior to the mance, and with lower job satisfaction. However, research model, in which goal orientation is the leader-member exchange was found to be only a independent variable, and leader-member ex- mediator in the negative relationship between per- formance orientation and job satisfaction. Our data Furthermore, as 14 supervisors provided perfor- provided no evidence that a low-quality leader- mance ratings across 170 employees, the data had member exchange was the interpersonal mecha- potential for bias owing to differences between su- nism that could clarify the negative relationship pervisors in performance evaluations. Moreover, between performance orientation and job perfor- the 170 respondents were nested within 14 organi- zational units led by those 14 supervisors and vary- These results provide new insights for the ing more or less in structure, culture, size, kind of achievement goal theory, in which the interper- jobs, technology, and so forth. To consider this sonal context of achievement situations has been nested data structure and check for possible super- largely neglected. In organizational settings, super-visors are an organization’s most salient agents for visor and unit effects, we conducted two-level employees, as they principally determine the im- analyses using the MLwiN computer package portant job products of subordinates. This study (Goldstein et al., 1998). These two-level analyses provides theoretical logic and empirical evidence decomposed the total observed variance in the vari- that employees’ goal orientations are related to the ables of interest into individual-level and group- quality of social exchanges they develop and main- level residual variances We conducted a two-level tain with their supervisors. In turn, the quality of analysis for each of the three outcome variables.
leader-member exchange facilitates employees’ job That is, after supervisor and unit effects as well as effectiveness in terms of in-role and innovative job the sociodemographic variables had been con- trolled for, mastery orientation, performance orien- Furthermore, the results shed new light on the tation, and leader-member exchange were added to relationship between goal orientation and job per- the models, to predict the outcome variables. These formance. Achievement goal theory suggests that two-level analyses provided the same pattern of both mastery-oriented and performance-oriented results that we obtained from the ordinary hierar- individuals are strongly motivated to meet their chical regression analyses reported above. That is, respective achievement goals. This high level of leader-member exchange was again found to medi- motivation is assumed to clarify the positive effects ate the positive effects of mastery orientation on of both goal orientations on actual performance that in-role job performance, innovative job perfor- have been documented in several studies (e.g., Bar- mance, and job satisfaction. Moreover, perfor- ron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Elliot & Church, 1997; mance orientation again interacted with mastery Ford et al., 1998; Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Utman, orientation in predicting in-role job performance.
1997; VandeWalle et al., 1999). Most of the studies that have reported positive links between perfor- improve researchers’ understanding of the link be- mance orientation and actual performance have tween performance orientation and actual perfor- been conducted among children and college stu- mance, including the conditions under which this dents carrying out fixed cognitive tasks in educa- link may exist (cf. Harackiewicz et al., 2002). Fur- tional or laboratory settings (e.g., Barron & Harack- thermore, more research is clearly needed to fur- iewicz, 2000; Elliot & Church, 1997; Ford et al., ther explore the psychological mechanisms under- 1998; Harackiewicz et al., 1997). However, in the lying the effects of goal orientations (cf. Barron & current study, conducted among employees of an Harackiewicz, 2000). For example, VandeWalle organization in the energy sector, a performance and his colleagues (1999) showed that the self- orientation in itself appeared to be negatively re- regulation tactics of goal setting, effort, and plan- lated to in-role job performance. Supplementary ning mediated the positive relationship between analyses showed that this negative relationship mastery orientation and job performance, whereas was buffered by a strong mastery orientation. That performance orientation was unrelated to these is, the level of in-role job performance was high methods of skill development. In addition to those among employees with high ratings for a perfor- task-oriented tactics, the added value of the current mance orientation only when they had high ratings study is that it explicates leader-member exchange on mastery orientation as well. An explanation of as an interpersonal mechanism that mediates the the present findings may be that a strong mastery relationship between employees’ mastery orienta- orientation shifts the focus away from typical tion and effectiveness on the job. An intriguing performance-oriented cognitions and evaluation question that arises from these cumulative results criteria, buffering or moderating the negative con- is to what extent a high-quality leader-member ex- sequences of a performance orientation (Van change process helps employees to focus on skill Yperen & Janssen, 2002). This result underscores development by means of self-regulation tactics.
the need to pay more attention to the development of The present study also contributes to the litera- multiple-goal models in achievement goal research ture on leader-member exchange. Most research in (Barron & Harackicwicz, 2000; Pintrich, 2000). An this domain has been conducted to examine how interesting question is whether individuals hold the process of leader-member exchange develops performance and mastery goals in mind simulta- and how the quality of leader-member exchange is neously, or whether they alternate between goal related to job performance and job attitudes for states (cf. Harackiewicz et al., 1997). At any rate, employees and supervisors (e.g., Gerstner & Day, the positive correlation between mastery orienta- 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & tion and performance orientation (r ϭ .33) found in Wayne, 1997). However, research devoted to pro- the present study seems to indicate that these dif- viding knowledge about the antecedents of leader- ferent orientations tend to coexist in a person. The member exchange has only recently begun (cf.
common component responsible for this correla- Gerstner & Day, 1997). Primary research suggests tion might be the approach-oriented achievement that factors such as relational demography, leader- motivation reflected in both orientations that di- member similarity, leader delegation, and person- rected employees to pursue beneficial outcomes ality traits of members and leaders influence the rather than to avert detrimental outcomes (Elliot & development and quality of leader-member ex- McGregor, 2001). As such, the positive correlation change (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl- between mastery and performance orientations Bien, 1995; Green et al., 1996; Liden et al., 1997).
may call into question the common assumption The present study provides theoretical logic and that the different goal orientations can be con- empirical evidence supporting the idea that goal orientation influences employees’ ability to de- Furthermore, a performance orientation was velop and maintain favorable social exchanges found to be unrelated to innovative job perfor- with their supervisors. Moreover, the quality of mance. The present findings suggest that a per- leader-member exchange appeared to clarify why formance orientation interferes with employees’ es- employees with stronger mastery orientations are tablishing high-quality relationships with their more effective in terms of in-role job performance, supervisors. These low-quality leader-member ex- innovative job performance, and job satisfaction.
changes signify that performance-oriented employ- Therefore, future research might examine whether ees lack important resources for skill development leader-member exchange mediates the influence of and sociopolitical support, which might clarify goal orientation on other effectiveness variables why a performance orientation is not advantageous such as organizational citizenship behaviors and for an employee’s innovative job performance.
Apparently, there is much research to be done to Some limitations of this research should also be considered. First, the cross-sectional design of the diating effect of leader-member exchange in the present study did not allow us to determine the relationship between mastery orientation and job direction of causality among the variables. The re- satisfaction was identical to the mediating effects sults are vulnerable to opposite and to bidirectional in the relationships between mastery orientation relationships because of the possibility that an em- and in-role and innovative job performance rated ployees’ performance and satisfaction might in- by the immediate supervisors of the respondents.
fluence the development and quality of leader- These considerations make us confident that com- member exchange, which, in turn, could shape mon method variance is not a major concern.
employees’ goal orientations. An argument against Finally, the sample consisted of lower-level em- such reversed causality is the fact that theory and ployees from an industrial organization in the previous research persuasively present both goal energy supply sector. Hierarchical level and partic- orientation and leader-member exchange as major ular organizational factors might vary with employ- causes of actual performance and task enjoyment ees’ goal orientations, leader-member exchange, (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000; Button et al., and job attitudes and behaviors. Therefore, gener- 1996; Farr et al., 1993; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen alization of the present results to employees per- & Uhl-Bien, 1995; VandeWalle et al., 1997). More- forming their job duties on higher hierarchical lev- over, goal orientations are viewed as rather stable els and in other types of organizations awaits personality characteristics that are fostered by peo- ple’s self-theories about the nature and develop- Several findings of the current study might have ment of attributes such as intelligence, personality, practical implications. In line with prior research and abilities (Dweck, 1999). In contrast, the quality conducted in a field setting (VandeWalle et al., of leader-member exchange is a typical work con- 1999), the present results suggest that mastery- text variable found to be dependent upon personal oriented employees tend to be more effective on the characteristics of employees and leaders (e.g., job than performance-oriented employees. A mas- Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; tery orientation might be of particular value for Green et al., 1996; Liden et al., 1997). Hence, goal performing the complex and challenging task of orientation can be considered as an antecedent innovation in the workplace. Employees with mas- rather than a consequence of the quality of leader- tery orientations are intrinsically motivated in their member exchange. An additional test of alternative work, tend to invest a lot of effort in their jobs, and path models in which mastery and performance attempt to establish high-quality social exchanges orientations mediated the effects of LMX on the with their supervisors. As delineated in the theo- outcome variables confirmed this conclusion.
retical section of this article, these conditions are The results demonstrated no mediation effects in needed in order to succeed in the comprehensive the regression of innovative job performance and tasks of generating, promoting, and implementing only modest mediation effects through mastery ori- innovative ideas. Thus, the results of the present entation in the regression analysis of in-role job study suggest that innovative job performance is performance and job satisfaction. Nonetheless, the related to an employee’s mastery orientation.
cross-sectional survey data cannot rule out the al- Therefore, organizations might consider selecting ternative suppositions that goal orientation and employees with strong mastery orientations for po- leader-member exchange are covariates or even sitions and roles directed toward initiating and im- consequences rather than causes of effectiveness on the job. Hence, longitudinal and experimental stud- Furthermore, although employees’ goal orienta- ies are needed to provide evidence of causation.
tions are rather stable personal characteristics, they Although the nature of the performance data (rat- are not indifferent to contextual factors (Ames, ings by supervisors) is a strength of the present 1992; Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Button et al., 1996; study, a second limitation concerns possible com- Dweck, 1999; Elliot, 1999; Farr et al., 1993; Pin- mon method variance in the relationships between trich, 2000; Van Yperen & Janssen, 2002). As per- the self-reported measures of goal orientation, the formance standards, production schedules, dead- mediating variable of leader-member exchange, lines, and the like are an integral part of any job and the outcome variable of job satisfaction. How- (Button et al., 1996), achievement situations on the ever, it is hard to imagine that the respondents in job might prompt employees to pursue perfor- this study would have artifactually caused the dif- mance goals (Van Yperen, 2003b). The present fering patterns of relationships between mastery findings show that a predominant performance ori- orientation and performance orientation, on the entation may lead to lower-quality leader-member one hand, and leader-member exchange and job exchanges and to lower in-role job performance.
satisfaction, on the other hand. Moreover, the me- Accordingly, organizations would be wise to de- sign a culture and practices that facilitate mastery Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
orientations among their employees in order to Psychology, 6: 1173–1182.
buffer potential detrimental consequences of per- Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. 2000. Achievement formance orientations primed by a given achieve- goals and optimal motivation: A multiple goals ap- ment situation (cf. VandeWalle et al., 1999; Van proach. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Yperen, 2003b). A mastery orientation might be Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for
facilitated by, among other things, self-referenced optimal motivation and performance: 229 –254.
rather than other-referenced feedback and compen- sation systems that focus on effort, personal im- Basu, R., & Green, S. R. 1997. Leader-member exchange provement, skill development, experimentation, and transformational leadership: An empirical ex- amination of innovative behaviors in leader-member Finally, VandeWalle and his colleagues (1999) dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27:
477– 499.
suggested that training employees to change theirself-theories and attitudes towards ability, effort, Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the and performance could help them to adopt mastery criterion domain to include elements of contextual orientations in the performance of their job duties.
performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Asso-
ciates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations:
That is, employees can be taught to view effort as a 71–98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
key determinant of job performance and profi-ciency as a malleable attribute that can be devel- Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1996. Goal oped in many ways. As the results of the present orientation in organizational research: A conceptual
and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior
study suggest, focusing on these mastery orienta- and Human Decision Processes, 67: 26 – 48.
tion features is important as doing so enablesemployees to establish the high-quality leader- Deci, E., & Ryan, R. 1985. The support of autonomy and member exchanges that are needed for high job control of behavior. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 53: 1024 –1037.
satisfaction and effective in-role and innovative jobperformance.
Duda, J. L. 2001. Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and clarifying some misun-
derstandings. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in
motivation in sport and exercise: 129 –182. Cham-
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:
Dweck, C. S. 1999. Self-theories: Their role in motiva-
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
tion, personality, and development. Ann Arbor, MI:
Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Amabile, T. M. 1985. Motivation and creativity: Effects of Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. 1988. A social cognitive motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal
approach to motivation and personality. Psycholog-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 393–397.
ical Review, 95: 256 –273.
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innova- Elliot, A. J. 1999. Approach and avoidance motivation tion in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cum- and achievement goal. Educational Psychologist,
mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior,
vol. 10: 187–209. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. 1997. A hierarchical model Ames, C. 1992. Achievement goals, motivational climate, of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.
and motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73:
Motivation in sport and exercise: 161–176. Cham-
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. 2001. A 2 ϫ 2 achievement Ames, C., & Archer, J. 1988. Achievement goals in the goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social
classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motiva- Psychology, 80: 501–514.
tion processes. Journal of Education Psychology,
Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. 1993.
Goal orientation and action control theory: Implica- Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. 1991. Work- tions for industrial and organizational psychology.
home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediat- In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Interna-
ing the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfac- tional review of industrial and organizational psy-
tion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
chology: 193– 232. Wiley.
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. 1998. Differential effects of Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-medi- learner effort and goal orientation on two learning ator variable distinction in social psychological re- outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51: 397– 420.
search: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid- Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. 1998. Relationship of goal orientation, Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. 1990. Healthy work: Stress,
metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with productivity, and the reconstruction of working
learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied
life. New York: Basic Books.
Psychology, 83: 654 – 665.
Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational Frost, P. J., & Egri, C. P. 1991. The political process of behavior. Behavioral Science, 9: 131– 133.
innovation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Liden, R., & Graen, G. 1980. Generalizability of the ver- Research in organizational behavior, vol. 13: 229 –
tical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of
Management Journal, 23: 451– 465.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. 1997. Meta-analytic review Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. 1997. Leader- of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and member exchange theory: The past and potential for construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82:
the future. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources man-
Goldstein, H., Rasbash, J., Plewis, I., Draper, D., Browne, agement, vol. 15: 47–119. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
W., Yang, M., Woodhouse, G., & Healy, M. 1998. A
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. 1994. Evidence that user’s guide to MlwiN. London: University of Lon-
task performance should be distinguished from con- textual performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based ogy, 79: 475– 480.
approach to leadership: Development of leader- Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. 1997. Role of goal orienta- member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over tion, ability, need for achievement, and locus of con- 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain per- trol in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process.
spective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219 –247.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 792– 802.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. 1996.
Pintrich, P. R. 2000. The role of goal orientation in self- Demographic and organizational influences on lead- regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & er-member exchange and related work attitudes. Or-
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:
ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
451–502. San Diego: Academic Press.
cesses, 66: 203–214.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. 1989. A second
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, generation measure of organizational citizenship
A. T., & Elliot, A. J. 1997. Predictors and conse- behavior.
quences of achievement goals in the college class- room: Maintaining interest and making the grade.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73:
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. 1993.
Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior
on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. 1999. The ties that and Human Decision Processes, 55: 120 –151.
bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, trans-formational and transactional leadership, and dis- Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. 1984. Moderating effects tance on predicting follower performance. Journal
of initial leader-member exchange status on the ef- of Applied Psychology, 84: 680 – 694.
fects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 69: 428 – 436.
Janssen, O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort- reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Jour-
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of inno- nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-
vative behavior: A path model of individual innova- ogy, 73: 287–302.
tion in the workplace. Academy of Management
Journal, 37: 580 – 607.
Janssen, O. 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect ef- and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy
fects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart of Management Journal, 44: 1039 –1050.
(Ed.), Sociological methodology: 290 –312. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Janssen, O. 2003. Innovative behavior and job involve- ment at the price of conflict and less satisfactory Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Process and struc- relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational
ture in leader-member exchange. Academy of Man-
and Organizational Psychology, 76: 347–364.
agement Review, 22: 522–552.
Jones, G. R. 2001. Organizational theory: Text and
Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R. S., Hoover, P. B., & cases. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schmidt, A. M. 2000. Goal orientation and task de- Kanter, R. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: Struc- mand effects on motivation, affect, and performance.
tural, collective, and social conditions for innova- Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 724 –738.
tion in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cum- Utman, C. H. 1997. Performance effects of motivational mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior,
state: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psy-
vol. 10: 169 –211. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
chology Review, 1: 170 –182.
VandeWalle, D. 1997. Development and validation of a Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived work domain goal orientation instrument. Educa-
organizational support and leader-member ex- tional & Psychological Measurement, 57: 995–
change: A social exchange perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 40: 82–111.
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. 1989. Innovation at work: J. W. 1999. The influence of goal orientation and Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 4: 15–
self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A lon- gitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. 1996. The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex Van Yperen, N. W. 2003a. Task interest and actual per- task. Group and Organization Management, 21:
formance: The moderating effects of assigned and adopted purpose goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85: 1006 –1015.
Van Yperen, N. W. 2003b. The perceived profile of goal orientation within firms: Differences between em-ployees working for successful and unsuccessful Onne Janssen (o.janssen@ppsw.rug.nl) is an assistant
firms employing either performance-based pay or professor of organizational psychology at the University job-based pay. European Journal of Work and Or-
of Groningen, The Netherlands. His current research fo- ganizational Psychology, 12: 229 –243.
cuses on the determinants and consequences of em- Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. 2003. Do high job ployee innovative behavior in organizations.
demands increase intrinsic motivation or job strain Nico W. VanYperen is a professor of psychology at the
or both? The role of job control and social support.
University of Groningen and at the University of Nijme- Academy of Management Journal, 46: 339 –348.
gen, The Netherlands. His research interests include Van Yperen, N. W., & Janssen, O. 2002. Feeling fatigued achievement goals, motivation and job performance, and and dissatisfied or feeling fatigued but satisfied? Em- ployees’ goal orientations and their responses to
high job demands. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 45: 1161–1171.

Source: http://nolostcapital.com/sites/nolostcapital.nl/files/blog-attachments/Publicatie_EMPLOYEES_GOAL_ORIENTATIONS_THE_QUALITY_OF_LEADER-MEMBER_EXCHANGE_AND_THE_OUTCOMES_OF...pdf