تعیین هدف در تیم : تاثیر یادگیری و اهداف عملکرد بر روند و عملکرد

This study examined the impact of three alternative types of goals (specific learning, general “do your best” learning, and specific performance) on team performance. Eighty-four-person teams engaged in an interdependent command and control simulation in which the team goal and task complexity were manipulated. Contrary to research at the individual level, teams with specific learning goals performed worse than did teams with general “do your best” learning goals or specific performance goals. The negative effects of specific learning goals relative to general “do your best” learning goals and specific performance goals were amplified under conditions of increased task complexity and were explained by the amount of coordination in the teams.

One of the most established theories of motivation is that of goal setting (Latham, 2007, Latham and Locke, 2007 and Mitchell and Daniels, 2003), which demonstrates that goals can significantly influence individual and team performance (Kleingeld, van Mierlo, & Arends, 2011; Locke & Latham, 1990; O’Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, 1994). Prior research suggests that the effects of goal setting are similar at the individual and team levels of analysis (e.g., Chen et al., 2009 and O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1994). Yet, the interconnectedness among team members and the collective nature of team tasks may in fact make the motivational processes associated with goal setting different at the team level than at the individual level (Chen and Kanfer, 2006, Kozlowski and Bell, 2003 and Latham and Locke, 2007). One burgeoning area of research in goal setting at the individual level is the distinction between learning and performance goals (e.g., Cianci et al., 2010, Kozlowski and Bell, 2006 and Seijts et al., 2004). In response to findings that specific, difficult goals harm learning and skill acquisition, individual-level research suggests that learning goals, rather than performance goals, should be set when tasks are complex or a person lacks the knowledge to perform the task effectively (Seijts et al., 2004). Recent research suggests that individual-level learning goals should be specific and difficult, much like performance goals (Seijts and Latham, 2005 and Seijts et al., 2004). Although research has demonstrated the positive effect of specific, difficult performance goals on team functioning (Kleingeld et al., 2011 and O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1994), few studies have examined learning goals in teams (Brown & Latham, 2002). We theorize that the effects of specific learning goals observed at the individual level will not generalize to the team level for two reasons. First, we submit that learning and performance goals cue different motivations and behavioral responses. Thus far, research on team goal setting has primarily focused on the extent to which performance goals cue responses such as increased effort, planning, and strategy formulation (Weingart, 1992, Weingart and Weldon, 1991 and Weldon et al., 1991). Research has yet to investigate the responses cued by learning goals. Second, we expect goal specificity and task complexity to influence how learning goals cue those responses. We theorize that the combination of a learning focus and high specificity will cue team members to adopt a more narrow focus on learning specific aspects of the task and therefore impair team coordination. We also expect task complexity to be an important boundary condition of the goal-performance relationship in teams. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which findings regarding specific learning goals at the individual level (Seijts et al., 2004) generalize to the team level, and to understand the mechanism through which goal type (learning, performance) and specificity influence team performance. We propose that specific learning goals are less effective in team contexts than general “do your best” learning goals and specific performance goals, and that these differential effects operate through the process of team coordination. Finally, we expect these differential effects to be further amplified on complex tasks, resulting in a first-stage mediated moderation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007).

Our primary interest in this research was to examine whether individual-level research (Seijts et al., 2004) showing the value of specific learning goals generalizes to team contexts. To make this comparison, we examined the influence of three different types of goals on team coordination and performance. To date, goal-setting theory has concluded, based on individual-level research, that specific learning goals are most effective when a task is complex and requires the acquisition of knowledge, specific learning goals are most effective (Seijts and Latham, 2005 and Seijts et al., 2004). The results of our study show that these findings do not generalize to team contexts. In particular, we found that in teams, the content and degree of specificity in learning goals reduces the value of specific learning goals relative to general “do your best” learning goals and specific performance goals. The effects of these goals on team performance become even more pronounced in complex tasks, which can be explained by the team process of coordination. Our findings have important theoretical implications for research on team-level motivation and goal setting. The first implication involves the discontinuity in the influence of specific learning goals on performance between the individual versus the team level of analysis. Many findings from individual-level goal-setting research have generalized to team contexts. For example, beyond the generalization of specific, difficult performance goals to the team context (Kleingeld et al., 2011 and O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1994), research has also found that goal setting, effort allocation and regulation, and feedback processes are similar at both the individual-level and team-level (Chen et al., 2009, DeShon et al., 2004 and Weingart, 1992). Thus, it might be expected that the positive influence of specific learning goals on individual performance would also generalize to team performance. Our findings suggest otherwise, and thus serve as an example of the dangers in generalizing theories across levels of analysis without the necessary empirical support. A second implication of our study involves how different goal types can influence coordination in teams. Our results demonstrate that team coordination can be restricted by specific learning goals relative to general “do your best” learning or specific performance goals. They also demonstrate that restricted coordination due to specific learning goals is particularly detrimental for complex tasks.