Goal Orientation – Flashcards

Examines the interaction between individual goal orientation (LGO or PGO) and situational inducements such as goal framing (either learning or performance goal framing) and feedback referents (comparing current self to past self vs comparing to norms - self vs. normative) in predicting performance trajectories (rate of performance improvement). Discusses supplementary (accentuating something already possessed) and complementary (providing something not possessed) situational inducements. LGO predicted performance trajectories when coupled with a performance goal condition (supplementary). LGO also predicted performance trajectories when coupled with self-referent feedback frames (complementary). Surprising results - expected a match in the two inducements (i.e. supplementary/supplementary or complementary/complementary)

Splits goal orientation into LGO, PGO-prove, and PGO-avoid in predicting overseas job outcomes for expatriates. LGO positively related to work adjustment, job performance, interaction adjustment, and general adjustment while negatively predicting premature return intention. Similar results for proving goal orientation, and opposite for avoiding goal orientation. POS also served as a factor that decreased work stress and increased adjustment while decreasing return intention. Adjustment facets partially mediated. In essence, how one views challenging job assignments can affect how they react to those assignments - can integrate with development literature if needed

Examines the effects of goal orientation on performance outcomes and job satisfaction as mediated by LMX. Discusses two forms of goal orientation, mastery (beliefs that attributes are dynamic and changeable and that exerting effort leads to performance improvement - how is this different from LGO???) and performance (attributes are fixed, therefore working hard indicates low competence and lack of attributes necessary to do well). This definition of PGO does not match with any other form I've seen (e.g. Payne et al, 2007; Button et al, 1996) which talk about responses to failure and PGO representing helplessness following failure (but it does match with Brett & VandeWalle, 1999). This paper finds that LMX mediates the effect of mastery goal orientation (or LGO?) on task performance, innovative performance, and job satisfaction

Argues and finds that goal orientation is a two-dimensional construct between LGO and PGO (although others have argued for splitting PGO into PPGO and APGO). LGO is associated with mastery-oriented responses and behaviors, and those high in LGO see failure as feedback and a learning opportunity. PGO strives to demonstrate competence and gain favorable judgments via performance or avoid negative judgments. Those high in PGO have decreased performance when faced with failure and may withdraw as they view failure as a challenge to their competence. Either of these can be dispositional ("default" orientation under which one operates) or situational (adopting different orientations depending on situation). There can therefore be four distinct constructs (situational/dispositional and LGO/PGO)

Traditional training focuses on preventing errors - this paper argues that errors may be a source of performance improvement since they serve as a form of negative feedback. Short and medium-term performance was higher for participants who engaged in error training (training via errors) that included instructions for how to handle those errors and learn from them. Goal orientation served as a moderator such that PGO (prove and avoid) had higher performance in conditions where avoiding errors was discouraged (as opposed to encouraged). LGO strengthened the effect of error training (people high in LGO view failure as a chance for growth, people high in PGO view failure as a sign of incompetence and tend to disengage as a result)

Examines dispositional goal orientation as a predictor of the content of goals that individuals choose, which then leads to task performance. LGO individuals more likely to choose goals that focus on skill improvement, PGO-prove more likely to choose goals that provide for a positive comparison against others, and PGO-avoid more likely to choose goals that help avoid negative evaluations. Skill improvement goals -> higher task performance. This paper helps us understand why people choose the goals that they choose (can integrate with motivation/goal-setting theory? This paper argues and finds that only skill-enhancing goals improve performance, but GST argues that difficult, specific goals are more motivating and thus lead to higher performance. Therefore, taken together, skill-enhancing goals in this paper may be more difficult?)

Examines metacognition (an individual's knowledge of their own cognition and cognitive processes) as a function of mastery orientation (a fancy relabel of LGO?). Mastery orientation positively associated with metacognitive activity. Mastery orientation -> higher self-efficacy, PGO -> lower self-efficacy. Metacognitive ability mediates relationship between LGO and knowledge acquisition, end-of-training performance, and self-efficacy. All three of these training outcomes positively associated with learning transfer performance (performance after training)

Examines goal orientation on sales performance among salespeople. LGO -> higher sales performance, fully mediated by three self-regulation tactics (goal setting, effort, and planning). PGO had no effect in the model. In essence, LGO has positive effects on performance

Examines the effect of goal orientation on performance across two time points. LGO was positively associated with time 2 performance (after measuring and controlling for time 1 performance), as mediated by effort and self-efficacy. Proving had a n.s. effect on time 2 performance, and avoidance had a negative effect. In other words, LGO still positively predicts performance even after accounting for experience (hence the time 1 performance measure) and feedback.

Foundational paper on goal orientation. Highlights the difference between LGO and mastery orientation. An individual's theory of intelligence (either fixed or malleable) predicts goal orientation (fixed -> PGO, malleable -> LGO). However, this goal orientation then interacts with the individual's confidence in their present ability. If a PGO person is confident, they may be mastery-oriented (seeking challenge and displaying high persistence). If a PGO person has low confidence, they may be helpless (avoid challenge and display low persistence). An LGO person (regardless of their confidence in their present ability) will display mastery-oriented behaviors. Thus goal orientation can predict motivation and behavior

Empirically tests Dweck (1986). Learning goals were found to predict challenge-seeking and mastery-oriented responses to failure regardless of perceived ability. Performance goals predicted challenge-avoidance and learned helplessness when perceived ability was low and certain forms of risk-avoidance when perceived ability is high.

Argues that implicit beliefs (e.g. about intelligence) can predict goals in different social situations, such that a belief of malleability of some facet of the self will be associated with a learning goal in that context, while beliefs of stability will be associated with performance goals in that context. Learning goals are then associated with mastery behavior while performance goals can lead to helplessness. In other words, goal choice can be influenced by implicit beliefs.

Examines moderators of the effect of goal orientation on motivation, affect, and performance. Task difficulty moderates the effect of goal orientation on performance, motivation, and affect (LGO has higher satisfaction in difficult tasks and higher self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in consistent tasks when compared to PGO). However, PGO individuals had higher performance than LGO individuals in simple tasks, but no difference with difficult tasks (but LGO had higher satisfaction with their performance).

Examines the moderating effect of team learning behavior (collective problem solving and reflection) on the effect of LGO and PGO (as split into avoidance and approach) on creativity. LGO -> creativity is strongest at moderate levels of LGO and high levels of team learning (high LGO and high team learning can lead to an overemphasis and diminishing returns). Approach performance orientation positively related to creativity only when team learning behavior was high. No effect for avoidance orientation

Meta of the goal orientation nomological net. Examines the antecedents and consequences of all six forms of goal orientation (LGO, PPGO, APGO, for both trait and state forms). LGO positively associated with goals (small effect = .19), self-efficacy (medium effect = .37), task performance (small = .05), and feedback seeking (medium = .24). APGO negatively associated with goals (small =-.17), self-efficacy (medium = -.26), and task performance (small = -.13), but positively associated with anxiety (medium = .36). Mixed and weak effects for PPGO. Meta provides support for Dweck's (1986) assertion that implicit theories of intelligence predict goal orientation. LGO predicted by NAch and conscientiousness (both medium effects). Goal orientation predicts performance above and beyond cognitive ability and personality.

Examines goal orientation fluctuations within individuals and the effects on performance. Within individuals, mastery orientation is positively associated with performance. Within individuals, performance-approach is positively associated with performance at low levels of task demands, but this relationship becomes negative at high levels of task demands. Performance-avoid negatively predicted performance between individuals, but not within. Mixed results between individuals. Hence the contribution of this paper: typical examinations of goal orientation and its effects on performance are conducted between individuals, despite the fact that the constructs are conceptualized as fluid and malleable (e.g. as a function of changes in implicit theories of intelligence - see Dweck, 1986). Therefore, we need to look at them within individuals to clarify some of the mixed findings

Learning goal orientation is positively associated with job search intensity, as mediated by self-regulatory mechanisms (i.e. emotion control, motivation control, and work commitment).

Examines time pressure as an antecedent of state goal orientations. Time pressure was negatively associated with mastery goal orientation and positively associated with performance-avoid. Greater uncertainty associated with mastery orientations, and when resources (i.e. time) are limited, individuals may be less willing to engage in more risky behaviors