Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T14:31:39.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Team goal orientation composition, team efficacy, and team performance: The separate roles of team leader and members

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2017

Chiung-Yi Huang ,
Jia-Chi Huang  and
Yuhsuan Chang
Chiung-Yi Huang
Affiliation:
Yuan Ze University, College Of Management, Discipline Of Organization Management, 135 Yuan-Tung Road, Chung-Li Dist, Taoyuan City 32003, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
Jia-Chi Huang
Affiliation:
National Chengchi University, Department Of Business Administration, No. 64, Sec. 2, Zhi-Nan Road, Wenshan Dist, Taipei City 11605, Taiwan (R.O.C)
Yuhsuan Chang*
Affiliation:
Yuan Ze University, College Of Management, Discipline Of Organization Management, 135 Yuan-Tung Road, Chung-Li Dist, Taoyuan City 32003, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
*
Corresponding author: yuyuchang@saturn.yzu.edu.tw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aims to examine team goal orientation composition regarding the different roles of a leader’s and team members’ collective goal orientation, and the effects of these on team outcomes. Data included 268 respondents from 64 teams. Results showed team members’ learning goal orientation has positive effect on team performance, mediated by team efficacy. Further, for the role of team leader, the results also revealed the same pattern. Study also showed a leader’s performance goal orientation has negatively related on team performance, mediated by team efficacy. Finally, taking both roles simultaneously, study indicated the interaction between a leader’s and members’ performance goal orientation has negatively related to team efficacy, and the interaction between a leader’s and members’ learning goal orientation has negatively related to team performance. This research contributes to the existing goal orientation theory by taking the different roles of team leader and members into consideration.

Keywords

team goal orientationteam efficacyroleteam performance
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , November 2019 , pp. 825 - 843
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.Google Scholar
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 62–78.Google Scholar
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 107–124.Google Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.Google Scholar
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 497–505.Google Scholar
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615.Google Scholar
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241–255.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristic perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557–591.Google Scholar
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 552–560.Google Scholar
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 26–48.Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–850.Google Scholar
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246.Google Scholar
Chen, G., & Mathieu, J. E. (2008). Goal orientation dispositions and performance trajectories: The roles of supplementary and complementary situational inducements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(1), 21–38.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. H., & Withey, M. J. (2009). The strong situation hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 62–72.Google Scholar
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1035–1056.Google Scholar
Dierdorff, E. C., & Ellington, J. K. (2012). Member matter in team training: Multilevel and longitudinal relationships between goal orientation, self-regulation, and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 661–703.Google Scholar
Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational work groups: The role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1084–1095.Google Scholar
Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72(2), 203–231.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectation and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 647–685.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a psychology of education (pp. 87–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychology Review, 95(2), 256–273.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learning helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1), 109–116.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work team. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 250–383.Google Scholar
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12.Google Scholar
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1992). Interactionism revisited: Reflections on continuing crisis in the personality area. European Journal of Personality, 6(3), 177–198.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and culture. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 138–152.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Earley, P. C. (2007). Collective cognition in action: Accumulation, interaction, examination, and accommodation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 438–458.Google Scholar
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 499–517.Google Scholar
Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.Google Scholar
Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827–851.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 analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832.Google Scholar
Gully, S. M., & Phillips, J. M. (2005). A multilevel application of learning and performance orientations to individual, group, and organizational outcomes. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 1–51). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (1983). A normative model of work team effectiveness (Technical Report No. 2). New Haven, CT: Yale School of Organization and Management.Google Scholar
Hendricks, J. W., & Payne, S. C. (2007). Beyond the Big Five: Leader goal orientation as a predictor of leadership effectiveness. Human Performance, 20(4), 317–343.Google Scholar
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, A., Chen, C. H., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 624–641.Google Scholar
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.Google Scholar
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641.Google Scholar
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Hedlund, J. (1998). Extending the multilevel theory of team decision-making: Effect of feedback and experience in hierarchical teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 269–282.Google Scholar
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 885–892.Google Scholar
Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Jukin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 675–689.Google Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.Google Scholar
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. Y. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). Effects of group characteristics on work group performance: A longitudinal investigation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(4), 279–290.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141–184.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climates for technical updating and performance. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 539–563.Google Scholar
Kristof-Brown, A., & Stevens, C. K. (2001). Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members’ personal master and performance goals matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1083–1095.Google Scholar
LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1153–1167.Google Scholar
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g . Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 803–811.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of the methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104.Google Scholar
Martocchio, J. J., & Hertenstein, E. J. (2003). Learning orientation and goal orientation context: Relationships with cognitive and affective learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 413–434.Google Scholar
Mehta, A., Field, H. S., Armenakis, A. A., & Mehta, N. (2009). Team goal orientation and team performance: The mediating role of team planning. Journal of Management, 35(4), 1026–1046.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the cross-roads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective construct: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 249–265.Google Scholar
Olson, B., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33(2), 196–222.Google Scholar
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 128–150.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 792–802.Google Scholar
Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginke, W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 153–164.Google Scholar
Posakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.Google Scholar
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185–192.Google Scholar
Porter, C. O. H. (2005). Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 811–818.Google Scholar
Porter, C. O. L., Webb, J. W., & Gogus, C. I. (2010). When goal orientations collide: Effects of learning and performance orientation on team adaptability in response to workload imbalance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 935–943.Google Scholar
Potosky, D., & Ramakrishna, H. V. (2002). The moderating role of updating climate perceptions in the relationship between goal orientation, self-efficacy, and job performance. Human Performance, 15(3), 275–297.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Hays, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.Google Scholar
Russo, M. (2012). Diversity in goal orientation, team performance, and internal team environment. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(2), 124–143.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 150–163.Google Scholar
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.Google Scholar
Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal setting and goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 227–239.Google Scholar
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of the multilevel role of personality in teams. In M. R. Barrick, & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organization (pp. 183–204). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sujan, H., Weitz, B., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 39–52.Google Scholar
Tuckey, M., Brewer, N., & Williamson, P. (2002). The influence of motives and goal orientation on feedback seeking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(2), 195–216.Google Scholar
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. (1999). The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 249–259.Google Scholar
VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 390–400.Google Scholar
VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S. P. (2000). An integrated model of feedback-seeking behavior: Disposition, context, and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 996–1003.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–50). Greenwhich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar