Goal orientation as a motivational antecedent of individual-level ACAP

Master Thesis

Goal orientation as a motivational antecedent of

individual-level ACAP

Amber van der Spek (11956062) Master Thesis

MSc. Business Administration, Strategy track

University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business MSc. B. Silveira Barbosa Correia Lima

2

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Amber van der Spek who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

3

Content

2.3 Perceived organizational support ... 21

2.4 Conceptual model ... 24

3. Method ... 25

3.1 Research method ... 25

3.2 Population sample ... 25

3.3 Data collection ... 25

3.4 Common method bias ... 26

3.5 Measurements ... 26

4. Analyses and Results ... 31

4.1 Correlation matrix ... 31

4.2 Harman’s single factor test ... 31

4.3 Regression ... 32

4.4 Moderation ... 33

5. Discussion ... 37

5.1 Implications ... 37

5.2 Limitations ... 43

5.3 Directions for future research ... 43

5.4 Conclusion ... 44

References ... 45

Appendices ... 50

Appendix 1. Survey ... 50

Appendix 2. Measurement scales ... 66

Appendix 3. EFA goal orientation ... 69

Appendix 4. EFA individual-level ACAP... 70

4

Abstract

Absorptive capacity (ACAP) is a firm’s ability to leverage valuable, external knowledge. ACAP is developed at the individual level before it evolves across the firm level. However, researchers have paid little attention to individual-level ACAP and, as a result, both a commonly accepted conceptualization and a thorough understanding of its antecedents are lacking. To enhance absorptive capacity both ability and motivation are essential. As prior research mainly focused on the ability-related antecedents, this study seeks to further our understanding of the motivational antecedents. Goal orientation is proposed as a motivational antecedent, as it encapsulates the motivation underlying individuals’ achievement pursuits in terms of learning and performance. Expected is that each type of goal orientation (learning, avoid, and prove) influences individual-level ACAP in a different manner, as different motivational characteristics are underlying each goal. As prior research indicated that the effects of goal orientation may be affected by contextual factors, this study investigates whether perceived organizational support (POS) has a positive influence. By means of a cross-sectional survey, data from individuals active in the financial services industry have been gathered. The finding that the learning goal orientation indeed is a motivational antecedent of individual-level ACAP is considered this studies’ main contribution. Also, found is that the avoid goal orientation has a negative effect on individual-level ACAP. Another important contribution is made to the conceptualization of individual-level ACAP, as the data provides evidence for dividing it into two factors, namely: PACAP and RACAP. This study highlights the importance of individual-level ACAP, in the hope that future research will further validate its conceptualization and broaden our knowledge of both ability- and motivation-related antecedents.

Key words; Absorptive capacity; Individual-level ACAP; PACAP; RACAP; Motivational antecedents; Goal orientation; Perceived organizational support.

5

1. Introduction

Today the day, organizations are increasingly facing fast changing markets. As firms strive to learn and develop capabilities faster than their rivals, competition is becoming more and more knowledge-based (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Teece & Pisano, 1994). Firms increasingly built innovative capacity by tapping into external knowledge sources and, therefore, firms’ adeptness to leverage this valuable external knowledge is highly essential (Ojo & Raman, 2015). Cohen & Levinthal (1990) labelled a firm’s ability ‘’to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends’’ as the firm’s absorptive capacity (ACAP). In their seminal article, Cohen & Levinthal (1990) explain that an organization’s absorptive capacity depends on the absorptive capacity of its members. That is, absorptive capacity has its roots at the individual level and evolves across the firm level. Individuals are highly important for a firm’s innovative strategy, as they can be seen as the firm’s frontline; connecting the firm to – and allowing the firm to learn from external sources (Enkel, Heil, Hengstler, & Wirth, 2017). Thus, to explain differences in organizations’ innovative ability, focus should be on the individuals who together form the constituents of firm-level ACAP.

After its seminal introduction in 1990, many researchers have tried to capture the concept of absorptive capacity. The concept of absorptive capacity has been used in more than 10.000 papers and books (Lewin, Massini, & Peeters, 2011), indicating its richness. In their perspective paper, Volberda et al. (2010) aimed to advance our understanding by summarizing and mapping literature on the antecedents and outcomes of absorptive capacity. By carefully analyzing prior literature, they came to an interesting finding: despite the fact that the founders are reasoning from the individual-level, research of the past two decades has mainly focused on the collective. According to Volberda et al. (2010) this is a major discrepancy, as knowledge of individual-level ACAP is essential to enhance and explain firm-level ACAP.

6 There are some obstacles that make it difficult to gain a thorough understanding of individual-level ACAP. First, current literature lacks a clear and commonly accepted conceptualization of level ACAP. Second, very little is known on how individual-level ACAP can be achieved or enhanced. To enhance absorptive capacity at the firm individual-level, it first must be developed at the individual level. Therefore, the little attention that has been paid to the conceptualization of individual-level ACAP and the ascertainment of its antecedents seem striking (Volberda et al., 2010). Thus far, only a handful of researcher aimed to extend our knowledge of the individual-level antecedents. These researchers mainly focused on individuals’ prior knowledge, individuals’ network, and individuals’ cognition (Lowik, Van Rossum, Kraaijenbrink, & Groen, 2012). These three types of antecedents indicate that there has been a focus on the individual’s ability to gain new information. However, even the effectiveness of employees with high ability will be limited if they do not have the motivation to use these skills to acquire and exploit external information. The understanding of the development of individual-level ACAP should be rooted in individuals’ ‘’cognition, motivation, action, and interaction’’ (Volberda et al., 2010, p. 941). Therefore, it seems odd that prior research mainly neglected motivational antecedents. As indicated by Minbaeva et al. (2014), ability is necessary but not sufficient. Thus, in order to achieve or enhance absorptive capacity both ability and motivation are needed.

As knowledge of the motivational antecedents of individual-level ACAP is necessary to understand how this construct can be achieved or enhanced, this research proposes goal orientation as a potential motivational antecedent. Goal orientation is expected to be a suited motivational antecedent, as it encapsulates the motivation underlying individuals’ achievement pursuits in terms of learning and performance. A framework is created around the specific type of goal that an individual adopts, which indicates how individuals interpret, experience, and act in their goal pursuits. Goal orientation focuses on motivational processes that affect the success

7 in cognitive tasks. Thus, the focus is on ‘’psychological factors other than ability, that determine how effectively the individual acquires and uses skills’’ (Dweck, 1986, p. 1040). Three specific types of goal orientation can be distinguished and each type relies on other motivational characteristics. First, in the learning goal orientation, individuals are concerned with truly mastering new knowledge to develop the self. Second, in the prove goal orientation, individuals have a desire to prove their ability in comparison to their peers. Finally, in the avoid goal orientation, individuals are motivated to avoid negative judgements about their abilities. In prior research, these three types of goal orientation have been related to an individual’s motivation to learn, motivation to transfer (that is, to actually use the new acquired knowledge) and other learning directed behaviors in different ways (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Medina, 2017). Therefore, it is expected that the types of goal orientation will also influence individual-level ACAP in different manners.

Prior research indicated that the influence of goal orientations on a certain individual’s outcomes, is affected by the context in which this individual is active. Thus, the influence of a certain type of goal orientation may be mitigated or fostered, depending on the organizational context (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). As the acquisition of external knowledge has become essential for firms’ competitive advantage and performance, organizations are putting greater emphasis on the intellectual capabilities of their employees (Rai & Prakash, 2016). Organizational contexts that facilitate support for these members have been found to enhance willingness and motivation to engage in absorptive capacity (Hinds & Pfeffer, 2001; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). This study proposes that the relationships between the three types of goal orientation and individual-level ACAP can be influenced by the individual’s perceived organizational support (POS). POS are the global beliefs that employees form, regarding the extent to which the organization cares for them and provides them with support. Expected is that POS may moderate the relationships between the types of goal orientation and

individual-8 level ACAP, based on the norm of reciprocity. This norm implies that employees who receive organizational support would feel obligated to help the firm reach its goals. Thus, the greater the support given by the firm is perceived to be, the greater would be the employees’ dedication. Therefore, it is expected that employees perceiving organizational support are more motivated to acquire and exploit new knowledge and, in that manner, contribute to the achievement of organizational goals. Prior research already related POS to positive outcomes, such as increased job satisfaction (Allen & Griffeth, 2003), positive mood (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001), and affective commitment (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). Also, a study of Duke et al. (2009) provided evidence for the moderating effect of POS on the relationship between emotional labor and job satisfaction, as well as emotional labor and job performance. However, besides this study, literature leaves us mainly ignorant about the moderating effects of POS.

Present study seeks to further our knowledge of the antecedents of individual-level ACAP. As both ability and motivation are needed to achieve or enhance absorptive capacity, this research aims to shed light on a potential motivational antecedent: goal orientation. As prior research indicated that the influences of the different types of goal orientation may be affected by the context in which the individual is active, this study seeks to investigate whether POS may have a moderating effect. Therefore, the following research question has been developed:

‘’What are the effects of the three different types of goal orientation on individual-level ACAP and are these effects moderated by individuals’ perceived organizational support?’’

By answering above research question, this study seeks to make several contributions. First of all, this research aims to contribute by furthering our knowledge of individual-level antecedents. As prior research on individual-level antecedents is scarce and the studies that did try to address this problem mainly focused on ability-related antecedents, this study attempts to

9 shed light on the motivational part. As achieving or enhancing individual-level ACAP requires both ability and motivation, determining whether the different types of goal orientation may function as motivational antecedents is considered a contribution. Second, this research seeks to contribute to the discussion of how individual-level ACAP should be conceptualized. As absorptive capacity has its roots at the individual level and evolves across the firm level, returning to the basis is essential to explain organizational differences (Volberda et al., 2010). Identifying the relationships among the different types of goal orientation and individual-level ACAP may have some practical contributions too. First, once clarity exists on how each type of goal orientation influences individual ACAP levels, managers may identify within which firm members valuable knowledge rests or which members are in a favorable position to gain new external knowledge. Also, clarity on how each goal type influences individual knowledge acquirement and transfer may help managers determine which members should be placed at the interface of the external environment and the firm, as well as at the interfaces of the firm’s subunits. Finally, this research seeks to contribute to literature on perceived organizational support. Prior research extensively studied its antecedents as well as consequences, however, left us mainly ignorant about its moderating function. Testing the moderating function of POS may also have a practical contribution, as it might provide practitioners with guidance on how to foster the willingness of different goal-oriented employees to engage in absorptive capacity.

10

2. Literature Review

2.1

Absorptive capacity

The concept of absorptive capacity (ACAP) has its seminal introduction in the articles of Cohen & Levinthal (1990).Cohen & Levinthal (1990, p. 128) labelled absorptive capacity as the firm’s ability ‘to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends’. They argue that a firm’s capability to recognize and exploit knowledge is largely a function of the firm’s prior related knowledge. New knowledge must be related to the existing knowledge base, in order for firms to recognize and make sense of the new information (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998). Therefore, in terms of learning, a diverse background provides a better basis, as it increases the chance that new external knowledge can be related to what is already known. A firm’ absorptive capacity is built on the individual ACAP levels of its members. However, the sum of these individual ACAP levels does not simply constitute firm-level ACAP. That is because firm-firm-level ACAP cannot just be explained by defining the interface of the organization and its external environment, as it also depends on the knowledge transfers within the firm and across its subunits (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).

Building on the work of Cohen & Levinthal (1990), Zahra & George (2002) reconceptualized the ACAP construct as consisting of two subsets, namely; potential absorptive capacity (PACAP) and realized absorptive capacity (RACAP). There are four dimensions underlying these two subsets. First, the acquisition dimension, which refers to the capability to recognize and acquire new external knowledge. Second, the assimilation dimension, which allows for the processing and interpreting of the recognized knowledge. Next, the transformation dimension, which refers to the capability to combine the new information with the existing knowledge base. Finally, the exploitation dimension, which emphasizes the actual application of the acquired, assimilated, and transformed knowledge in firms’ operations. Zahra

11 & George (2002) define PACAP as the firm’s ability to acquire and assimilate external knowledge. However, exploitation of this new knowledge is not guaranteed. In turn, RACAP is the firm’s ability to transform and actually use, that is exploit, the new knowledge. Based on these two subsets and their four underlying dimensions, absorptive capacity is defined as ‘’a set of organizational routines and processes by which firms acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit knowledge to produce a dynamic organizational capability’’ (Zahra & George, 2002, p. 186).

After its seminal introduction in 1990, many researchers have tried to capture the construct of absorptive capacity. The concept of absorptive capacity has been used in more than 10.000 papers and books (Lewin et al., 2011), indicating the richness of the construct. In their perspective paper, Volberda et al. (2010) aimed to advance our understanding by summarizing and mapping literature on the antecedents and outcomes of absorptive capacity. By carefully analyzing prior literature, they came to an interesting finding: despite the fact that the founders are reasoning from the individual-level, research of the past two decades has mainly focused on the collective. According to Volberda et al. (2010) this can be seen as a major discrepancy, as knowledge of individual-level ACAP is essential in order to explain outcomes at the firm level. Besides the lack of a commonly accepted and validated conceptualization of individual-level ACAP, individual-individual-level antecedents have largely been neglected too.

Where multiple researchers have tried to conceptualize firm-level ACAP (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Lane & Lubatkin, 1998; Zahra & George, 2002), well-founded conceptualizations of individual-level ACAP remain fragile. Lowik et al. (2012) attempted to conceptualize individual-level ACAP as a multidimensional construct, consisting of its four underlying dimensions: recognition, assimilation, transformation, and exploitation. However, examining the distinctiveness of the four dimensions, Lowik et al. (2012) found moderate to strong correlations. This indicates that the dimensions are too strongly interrelated to make a

12 conceptual distinction between them. Therefore, Lowik et al. (2012) decided to treat individual-level ACAP as a unidimensional construct. However, as prior research provides evidence for the distinction between PACAP and RACAP (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2005; Zahra & George, 2002), this study proposes that such a distinction in absorptive capacity should also exist at the individual-level. Expected is that the recognition and assimilation dimensions are strongly related and together form individual-level PACAP. On the other hand, it is expected that the transformation and exploitation dimensions are strongly related and together form individual-level RACAP. Therefore, in this study, individual-level ACAP will be treated as a multidimensional construct consisting of the two factors PACAP and RACAP.

Another shortcoming in terms of individual-level ACAP, is a thorough understanding of how it is achieved or enhanced. Even though mostly neglected, the researchers that did attempt to identify the antecedents of individual-level ACAP mainly focused on three streams, namely: individuals’ prior knowledge, individuals’ network, and individuals’ cognition (Lowik et al., 2012). For prior knowledge, the focus is on an individuals’ current knowledge diversity. The more diverse the individuals’ current knowledge base is, the bigger is the chance that something new can be related to something that is already known. Therefore, it has been found that individual-level ACAP is positively influenced by an individuals’ prior knowledge diversity (Lowik, Kraaijenbrink, & Groen, 2017; Lowik et al., 2012; Ojo & Raman, 2015). As for the individuals’ network, again the focus is on diversity. Emphasized is that individuals’ that have a diverse network are more likely to be exposed to sources with new knowledge. Hereby, a distinction is made between individuals’ internal- and external network. Research only provided evidence for the positive effect of individuals’ external network diversity and, therefore, only external network diversity can be determined as an antecedent of individual-level ACAP (Lowik et al., 2017). Finally, in terms of cognition, a distinction between two ‘types’ is made. To explain differences in how individuals process information and make

13 decisions, bisociative and associative cognitive styles are used. In the bisociative style, the individual uses imagination and intuition and seeks for solutions ‘outside-the-box’. The bisociative individual is able to make connections that are not readily apparent. In contrast, the associative individual relies on rational thinking and uses rules and methodologies within disciplinary boundaries. An individuals’ cognitive style influences how an individual seeks and transforms external information. Bisociative individuals’ have a tendency to search for new things and unknown solutions, while associative individuals search for similarities and known solutions. Also, individuals’ holding a bisociative cognitive style tend to be more creative in transforming acquired knowledge. Therefore, prior research determined the bisociative cognitive style as an antecedent of individual-level ACAP, as it was found to have a positive and significant effect (Lowik et al., 2017, 2012).

Prior review not only indicates that research on the antecedents of individual-level ACAP is quite scarce, but also shows that there mainly has been a focus on the ability to gain new information. However, even the effectiveness of employees with high ability will be limited if they do not have the motivation to use these skills to acquire and exploit new knowledge. The understanding of the development of individual-level ACAP should be rooted in individuals’ ‘’cognition, motivation, action, and interaction’’ (Volberda et al., 2010, p. 941). Therefore, it seems odd that prior research mainly neglected motivational antecedents. As indicated by Minbaeva et al. (2014), ability is necessary but not sufficient. In order to achieve or enhance absorptive capacity both ability and motivation are needed. Thus, as knowledge on the motivational antecedents of individual-level ACAP is necessary to further our understanding of how this construct can be achieved or enhanced, this research will focus on a potential motivational antecedent, namely: goal orientation. Goal orientation is expected to be a suited motivational antecedent, as it encapsulates the motivation underlying individuals’ achievement pursuit in terms of learning and performance. A framework is created around the

14 specific type of goal that an individual adopts, which indicates how individuals interpret, experience, and act in their goal pursuits. Goal orientation focuses on motivational processes that affect the success in cognitive tasks. Thus, the focus is on ‘’psychological factors other than ability, that determine how effectively the individual acquires and uses skills’’ (Dweck, 1986, p. 1040). Prior research already determined a significant relationship between goal orientation and individual-level ACAP (Ojo & Raman, 2015). However, in the perception of the present research, there are some limitations to this study. Ojo & Raman (2015), for example, only treat the acquisition and assimilation dimensions as part of individual-level ACAP, as they believe the transformation and exploitation dimensions to be part of the collective. Thus, from this studies’ point of view, they only investigated the influences of an individuals’ goal orientation on individual-level PACAP. Furthermore, Ojo & Raman (2015) only tried to identify the effects of the learning and prove goal, leaving us mainly ignorant about the possible influences of the avoid goal. As goal orientation is expected to be a suited motivational antecedent and prior research on this antecedent interferes with our conceptualization of individual-level ACAP, this research seeks to further our understanding of goal orientation as a potential antecedent of both individual-level PACAP and individual-level RACAP.

2.2

Goal orientation

Seminal theory on goal orientation was developed by Dweck (1986), who proposed that individuals have certain goal orientations: ‘’dispositions toward developing or demonstrating ability in achievement situations’’ (VandeWalle, 1997, p. 996). In her work, Dweck (1986) distinguishes between two types of goal orientation: the learning goal and the performance goal. In the learning goal orientation, individuals are concerned with the development of competence and task mastery. In the performance goal orientation, individuals feel the need to demonstrate their skills relative to others to seek favorable judgment and avoid negative judgment. The underlying difference between these two goals is nestled in how individuals view their ability.

15 Performance goal-oriented individuals tend to hold an entity theory; they believe ability is fixed and, thus, difficult to develop. Learning goal-oriented individuals tend to hold an incremental theory; they view ability as an attribute that can be improved and developed continuously. Dweck’s (1986) early work positioned performance and learning goal orientations as the opposite ends of a single continuum, whereby goal orientation was conceptualized as a unidimensional construct. However, latter works (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Heyman & Dweck, 1992) found that individuals may hold both learning and performance goal orientations and, thus, conceptualized goal orientation as a two-factor construct instead of a single continuum. In these works, the performance goal orientation was proposed to consist of two dimensions, that is: a prove (gaining favorable judgments) and an avoid (avoiding unfavorable judgments) dimension.

Subsequent work on goal orientation proposed that the construct should exist of three factors: a learning goal, a performance prove goal, and a performance avoid goal. By conducting two experiments, Elliot & Harackiewicz (1996) found empirical support for the distinction between the prove and avoid dimension. Elaborating on the evidence found, vandeWalle (1997, p. 1000) reconceptualized goal orientation as a multidimensional construct in which the following three factors can be distinguished: (a) the learning goal orientation: ‘’a desire to develop the self by acquiring new skills, mastering new situations, and improving one’s competence’, (b) the performance prove goal orientation: ‘’the desire to prove one’s competence and to gain favorable judgments about it’’, and (c) the performance avoid goal orientation: ‘’the desire to avoid the disproving of one’s competence and to avoid negative judgments about it’’. Recent works (Johnson, 2011; Medina, 2017) validated vandeWalle’s (1997) reconceptualization by providing support for the three distinguished factors and, thus, the multidimensionality of the construct. Following these works, in this study vandeWalle’s (1997) conceptualization of goal orientation will be used, whereby the construct of goal

16 orientation consists of three factors, namely: the learning goal, the prove goal, and the avoid goal.

Prior research has extensively studied the outcomes of the different types of goal orientations and, because of their distinct motivational characteristics, showed that each of these types may lead to different outcomes. Recently, the three goal orientations have been proposed as antecedents of the acquisition and exploitation of information. Medina (2017, p. 287) investigated how the three goal orientations function as antecedents of training motivation: ‘’the direction, intensity, and persistence of learning-directed behavior in training contexts’’. In her study, Medina (2017) proposes that training motivation consists of the motivation to learn (the desire to learn the content of the program) and the motivation to transfer (the desire to actually use the acquired skills and knowledge). The concept of training motivation might be compared to our conceptualization of individual-level ACAP, as both imply a learning-directed behavior and concern how individuals absorb and deal with new, external information. The motivation to learn refers to the desire to understand and learn the content of the training program, which can be compared to acquiring and assimilating new information (PACAP). The motivation to transfer involves the desire to actually use the acquired knowledge, which can be compared to transforming and exploiting the new absorbed information (RACAP). As for the learning goal, Medina (2017) found it to have a positive and significant effect on both the motivation to learn and the motivation to transfer. In addition, the learning goal was positively and significant related to training satisfaction. Besides the positive findings of Medina (2017), earlier studies on goal orientation also provided evidence for the positive outcomes of the learning goal. The learning goal has, for example, been positively linked to intrinsic motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), excitement, challenge appraisal, task absorption (Elliot, 1994), and feedback seeking (Vandewalle, 2003). These findings on the learning goal clearly indicate the individuals’ willingness to display a learning behavior. As learning goal-oriented

17 individuals have more interest in - and are more excited about their own tasks, expected is that they will be more interested in gaining new information which may help them execute their tasks even better. Also, this job interest may make them more alert to changes or up-dates that might be relevant to their work. Based on the individuals’ willingness to display a learning behavior, the desire to truly develop the self, and the excitement about own tasks, expected is that the learning goal orientation positively influences individual-level PACAP:

H1: The learning goal orientation has a positive effect on individual-level PACAP.

Being actively engaged in acquiring and assimilating new knowledge already is a step in the right direction for enhancing individual-level RACAP too. Because learning goal-oriented individuals possess a broader knowledge stock this also makes them more successful in transforming and exploiting (Yao & Chang, 2017), as they have more knowledge to build on and they are expected to be more up-to-date. Prior research indicated that the step from PACAP to RACAP is not always easily made and individuals should be motivated to do so. Therefore, expected is that the intrinsic motivation that prior has been related to the learning goal positively influences the willingness to take this step. Also, as prior research has shown that in training contexts learning goal-oriented individuals were very willing to actually use newly acquired information, expected is that they also will be motivated to do so in their daily working context. Finally, learning goal-oriented individuals are considered to be more creative (Yao & Chang, 2017). Being creative is expected to positively influence individual-level RACAP, as the learning goal orientation is associated with ‘’mental models and skills that may allow individuals to bring different existing parts together, and in turn, the generation of new ideas’’ (Yao & Chang, 2017, p. 2045). Thus, creative individuals are expected to make easier and faster connections between old and new knowledge, that is; transform. Also, they may be more inventive in how to apply their knowledge in different situations. Therefore, proposed is that the learning goal orientation positively influences individual-level RACAP:

18 H2: The learning goal orientation has a positive effect on individual-level RACAP.

One of the first experiments on goal orientation indicated that, even though the avoid goal was found to lead to lower levels of intrinsic motivation, avoid goal-oriented participants performed just as well as their prove- and learning goal-oriented counterparts. This may indicate that the desire to attain success and the desire to avoid failure engender the same quantity of motivation, only the qualitative nature of this motivation may differ (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). A second study on the relationship between the avoid goal and intrinsic motivation also indicated a negative relationship (Elliot & Church, 1997). Even though these seminal experiments found the avoid goal to lead to equivalent levels of performance, the prospect of potential failure that underlies the avoid goal is likely to elicit negative consequences. Examples of these consequences are anxiety, self-protective withdrawal, lower task enjoyment, and lower concentration (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). In training contexts, the avoid goal was found to have no relationship with an individuals’ motivation to learn. Also, the avoid goal has been negatively related to motivation to transfer (Medina, 2017). As avoid goal-driven individuals showed no willingness to display a learning behavior, expected is that the same may occur in an individual’s working context. Thus, expected is that during day-to-day work activities, avoid goal-oriented individuals are not motivated to learn new things. Also, as prior research found the avoid goal to lead to lower levels of intrinsic motivation and task enjoyment, expected is that avoid goal-oriented individuals are not excited to search and acquire new knowledge related to their job tasks. Zahra & George (2002) indicated that acquisition capabilities are determined by effort. As the avoid goal-oriented individuals have no intrinsic motivation nor work-related joy, expected is that these individuals are not willing to provide the necessary effort. Therefore, proposed is that the avoid goal orientation has a negative influence on individual-level PACAP:

19 As it is expected that avoid goal-oriented individuals have lower stocks of newly acquired information, they will also have less knowledge to bring into practice and a less broad knowledge base to fall back on. Furthermore, the transformation dimension of RACAP concerns the capability to combine existing and new knowledge, which might be simply accomplished by interpreting the same knowledge in different manners. Transforming shapes the entrepreneurial mindset and may not only yield new insights but also alter the way one sees himself in his competitive landscape (Zahra & George, 2002). As avoid goal-oriented individuals have low self-esteem and believe in the entity theory (ability cannot be developed), expected is that it will be more difficult for them to place themselves in different frameworks and interpret information in different manners. Also, as they believe abilities are fixed, expected is that they cannot easily alter the way they see themselves. Therefore, transforming information to come to new insights or personal developments might be more difficult for avoid goal-oriented individuals. Furthermore, as in a training context avoid goal-goal-oriented individuals were not found to be motivated to transfer (Medina, 2017), expected is that the same will occur in an individual’s working context. Thus, expected is that during day-to-day work activities, avoid goal-oriented individuals are not motivated to actually use acquired knowledge. Also, as prior research indicated that the prospect of potential failure is related to anxiety (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), expected is that avoid goal driven individuals might be scared to really perform, that is; exploit. Thus, the boundary to transform and exploit acquired knowledge is expected to be higher for avoid goal-oriented individuals. Therefore, this research proposes that the avoid goal orientation also has a negative influence on individual-level RACAP:

H4: The avoid goal orientation has a negative effect on individual-level RACAP.

Where outcomes of the learning goal orientation are found to be positive and outcomes of the avoid goal orientation are mostly found to be negative, empirical findings on the prove goal orientation are quite diverging. In an early study the prove goal was found to lead to similar

20 levels of intrinsic motivation as the learning goal (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). However, latter research did not find a significant relationship between the prove goal and intrinsic motivation but solely found it to be positively related to performance (Elliot & Church, 1997). Also, the prove goal was found to lead to lower feedback seeking (Vandewalle & Cummings, 1997), low-challenging assignments (Preenen, Van Vianen, & De Pater, 2014), and the tendency to desire easy tasks with immediate results (Johnson, 2011). In training contexts, recent research did find the prove goal to have a positive influence on individuals’ motivation to learn (Medina, 2017). This indicates that the prove goal-oriented individual is willing to display a learning behavior. Expected is that the prove goal-oriented individual is motivated to acquire and assimilate new external knowledge, as he does not want to fall behind his peers. Therefore, even though another kind of motivation is underlying the acquisition and assimilation, the prove goal is still expected to be positively related to individual-level PACAP: H5: The prove goal orientation has a positive effect on individual-level PACAP.

Because prove goal-oriented individuals want to be perceived as competent by their peers, they will ensure that they are up-to-date about what is happening in their environment. Because prove goal-oriented individuals are expected to possess a broader knowledge stock, this probably makes them more successful in transforming and exploiting too, as they have more knowledge to build on (Yao & Chang, 2017). Also, as Medina (2017, p. 291) indicated that prove goal-oriented individuals may have the feeling that ‘’transferring the knowledge acquired will help prove to their peers their knowledge of the subject’’, this may motivate them to engage in individual-level RACAP too. In training contexts, the prove goal orientation has already been found to positively influence the actual use of newly acquired information. Based on this finding and the expectation that prove goal-oriented individuals want to show their competence to others by exploiting the knowledge acquired, proposed is that the prove goal orientation positively influences individual-level RACAP:

21 H6: The prove goal orientation has a positive effect on individual-level RACAP.

2.3

Perceived organizational support

Prior research emphasized that ‘’the effect of achievement goals varies as a function of achievement contexts’’ (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996, p. 473). This indicates that the specific effect of a certain goal is influenced by the organizational context in which the individual is active. As the acquisition of external knowledge has become essential for firm’s competitive advantage and performance, organizations are putting greater emphasis on the intellectual capabilities of their employees (Rai & Prakash, 2016). Organizational contexts that facilitate support for these members have been found to enhance willingness and motivation to engage in absorptive capacity (Hinds & Pfeffer, 2001; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). A contextual factor that is expected to moderate the relationship between the types of goal orientation and individual-level ACAP is perceived organizational support (POS). POS are the global beliefs that employees form regarding the extent to which the firm cares for – and supports them. Organizational support theory relies on the norm of reciprocity. This norm implies that employees who receive highly valued resources feel obligated to help the organization reach its goals. Thus, the greater the support given by the firm, the greater would be the employees’ dedication. Prior research has positively related POS to increased job satisfaction (Allen & Griffeth, 2003), positive mood (Eisenberger et al., 2001), and affective commitment (Rhoades et al., 2001). Furthermore, prior research found POS to have a moderating effect on the relationship between emotional labor and job satisfaction, as well as emotional labor and job performance (Duke et al., 2009). Based on the norm of reciprocity, expected is that individuals who perceive organizational support will feel obligated to help the firm reach its goals. Therefore, expected is that the reciprocity norm motivates individuals to acquire and assimilate new information to perform their tasks better, stay up-to-date, and so contribute to achieving organizational goals. Also, POS has been found to increase both individuals’ job involvement

22 and perceived competence. In turn, individuals’ job involvement and perceived competence have been related to individuals’ task interest (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Expected is that POS, by enhancing individuals’ task interest, increases willingness to display a learning behavior and to acquire new information and skills which may contribute to performing these tasks. Therefore, this research proposes that POS, based on the norm of reciprocity and by increasing employees willingness to displays a learning behavior, positively moderates the relationships between the three types of goal orientation and individual-level PACAP:

H7: Perceived organizational support positively moderates the relationship between the learning goal orientation and individual-level PACAP.

H8: Perceived organizational support positively moderates the relationship between the avoid goal orientation and individual-level PACAP.

H9: Perceived organizational support positively moderates the relationship between the prove goal orientation and individual-level PACAP.

It also is expected that individuals who perceive organizational support will be motivated to transform and exploit the acquired knowledge, to help the organization reach it goals. Furthermore, prior research indicated that POS may function as an assurance that ‘’aid will be available from the organization when it is needed to carry out one’s job’’ (Rhoades &

Eisenberger, 2002, p. 698). Expected is that this assurance lowers the boundary for individuals to actually bring newly acquired knowledge and skills into practice, as they perceive that they can fall back on the organization when needed. This assurance may be particularly relevant for avoid goal driven individuals, who prospect potential failure. Also, prior research has shown that POS positively influences the individuals believe that increased task performance will be recognized and rewarded by the organization (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986), thereby enhancing the individual’s motivation to perform. The recognition and

23 rewarding of performance might be especially motivating for prove goal driven individuals, as these individuals seek to attain favorable judgments. Based on the norm of reciprocity, the assurance POS provides, and the potential rewards it offers, proposed is that POS also positively moderates the relationships between the three types of goal orientation and individual-level RACAP:

H10: Perceived organizational support positively moderates the relationship between the learning goal orientation and individual-level RACAP.

H11: Perceived organizational support positively moderates the relationship between the avoid goal orientation and individual-level RACAP.

H12: Perceived organizational support positively moderates the relationship between the prove goal orientation and individual-level RACAP.

24

2.4

Conceptual model

The developed hypotheses are displayed in the model below.

25

3. Method

3.1

Research method

In order to test the hypothesized relationships between the variables, a survey has been conducted. The conducted survey is cross-sectional, which contains that the sample population has only been tested at a given point in time. Thus, this research does not seek to explain the development of the proposed relationships.

3.2

Population sample

In prior research, individual-level ACAP has been tested in the context of several particular sectors. Prior studies have tested the antecedents of individual-level ACAP in engineering, manufacturing, and IT industries. Also, most of the studies focused on a single organization. To contribute to literature on individual-level ACAP, more empirical research in different organizations and industries is needed (Enkel et al., 2017). In order to improve the generalizability of empirical research on the antecedents of individual-level ACAP, the survey provided here will be conducted in multiple organizations. However, following Enkel et al. (2017) in their argument that caution must be taken in considering the influence of environmental differences, this research will focus on a single sector, namely: financial services. Due to limited access of the researcher, the survey will only be conducted in financial services companies located in the Netherlands.

3.3

Data collection

The developed survey has been pre-tested to lower the chance of potential misinterpretations and to assure validity. After making the necessary corrections, the survey was sent to approximately 250 potential respondents that match the sampling criteria of working in a Dutch financial services company. One week after the initial mailing, reminder notes were sent in

26 order to increase responses. In total, 131 people responded to the survey. However, 21 of these responses were deleted due to incompleteness, leaving a sample size of n = 110.

3.4

Common method bias

To reduce the effects of common method bias, suggestions by Podsakoff et al. (2012) were followed. First of all, the survey was pre-tested by five people, to identify possible ambiguous items. Ambiguous items are difficult to understand and, therefore, increase the likelihood on inadequate answers, as respondents give their own meaning to them. To avoid this issue, for each item that was perceived as ambiguous or unfamiliar during the pre-test an additional explanation has been provided. Also, to further reduce item ambiguity, every point in the response scale was labelled instead of only the end points. Furthermore, to avoid socially desirable answers, the survey was administered anonymously. Finally, to motivate honest answering, the introduction text emphasized that there are no right or wrong answers.

3.5

Measurements

As the survey conducted was the tool for three different researches, it contained measurement scales for multiple variables (Appendix 1). In this section there will only be elaborated on the independent variable, dependent variable, and moderator that are the focus of this research. Also, the relevant control variables will be discussed. The measurement scales of the variables can be found in Appendix 2.

3.5.1. Independent variable

Goal orientation, the independent variable, has been measured by a 13-item scale developed by VandeWalle (1997). Following prior research, answers were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Prior research provided evidence for goal orientation as existing of three factors, that is: the learning goal, the avoid goal, and the prove goal. To determine whether the three-factor model also fits the data gathered for this research, an

27 explanatory factor analysis (EFA) has been performed. As expected, the EFA for goal orientation indicated that the construct consists of three independent factors (Appendix 3). The five items for the learning goal loaded only on its respective latent variable. The same accounted for the four items of the avoid goal and the four items of the prove goal. Thus, as expected, the data provides evidence for the three-dimensionality of the goal orientation construct. To assure reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha of the construct has been calculated per subscale (Field, 2009). For goal orientation, both the learning goal (α = .775) and avoid goal (α = .828) scale were found to be reliable. In contrast, the prove goal scale gave a Cronbach’s alpha below .7 (α = .667). Deleting one of the items from the prove scale would lead to a minor increase of the Cronbach’s alpha (α = .689). However, as the α still is below the norm of .7 and prior research provided evidence for the reliability of all four items of the prove scale, all four items were retained.

3.5.2 Dependent variable

In order to measure the dependent variable, individual-level ACAP, a 14-item scale developed by Lowik et al. (2012) has been used. Following prior research, items were answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Prior research provided evidence for absorptive capacity existing as both a two-factor (PACAP and RACAP) and a four-factor construct (recognition, assimilation, transformation and exploitation). As earlier studies indicated strong correlations between the four dimensions underlying individual-level ACAP, this study proposed it to consist as a two-factor construct. To truly determine the number of factors underlying individual-level ACAP, explanatory factor analyses have been performed. Examining different solutions, the two-factor model gave a superior fit to the gathered data. As the first seven items represent the recognition and assimilation dimensions and the second seven items represent the transformation and exploitation dimensions, the EFA provides evidence for dividing individual-level ACAP into PACAP and RACAP. The first two items, related to the

28 recognition dimension, mainly seemed problematic as they load on both factors. The factor analysis improved by deleting either item 1 or item 2. However, deleting item 2 brought the Cronbach’s alpha of the PACAP scale below the norm of .7. Therefore, it has been decided to retain item 2 and delete item 1 of the recognition dimension. By the deletion of item 1, item 11 of the transformation dimension became more problematic as it loads onto both factors. However, as the item loads very low on the PACAP factor (,309) and deleting the item would have a negative influence on the Cronbach’s alpha for the RACAP subscale, it has been decided to retain item 11. For the different outputs of the EFA, please refer to Appendix 4. As with goal orientation, the reliability of the construct has been determined per subscale. Both the PACAP (without item 1, α = .713) and RACAP (α = .789) subscale were found to be reliable.

3.5.3 Moderator

To measure POS, a short form of the Survey of Perceived organizational support has been used (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997). Following the study of Eisenberger et al. (1997), the questions were answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree). Even though prior research provided evidence for the high reliability and unidimensionality of the POS scale (Rhoades et al., 2001), the performed EFA indicated that the scale exists of more than one factor. Deletion of item 8 of the POS scale did not only made the scale appear as existing of one factor but was also found to improve the scale’s Cronbach’s alpha (α = .828). Therefore, it has been decided to delete item 8 of the POS scale. For the different outputs of the EFA, please refer to Appendix 5.

3.5.4 Control variables

In this study, there will be controlled for age, education, tenure, and firm size.

Age. As prior research found that age has a significant positive effect on individual-level ACAP

29 measured in five categories, however, as the last category (60+) contained only five people, it has been combined with the category 50-59. This decision led to four ‘age’ categories, namely: 20-29 (35 respondents), 30-39 (21 respondents), 40-49 (32 respondents), and 50+ (22 respondents).

Education. The same study of Lowik et al. (2012) found education to be significantly related to individual-level ACAP. As for education, the respondents had to choose between three categories, namely: (1) MBO, (2) HBO, and (3) University degree. The data showed that only 9 respondents answered (1) MBO, therefore it has been decided to combine category 1 and 2. Accordingly, the first category (consisting of MBO and HBO) exists of 62 persons, while the second category (university) exists of 48 people.

Tenure. Individuals’ tenure within the organization will be used as a control as the seminal

article on absorptive capacity indicated that prior related knowledge is needed to assimilate and use new knowledge. Expected is that individuals’ tenure within the current organization influences this prior related knowledge and, thus, the individuals’ ability to absorb new related knowledge. Tenure within the current organization has been answered in years and, therefore, is a continuous variable.

Firm size. Finally, there will be controlled for firm size, as prior research indicated that larger

units or firms may have more resources (Jansen et al., 2005) which may influence absorptive capacity. Respondents were asked two identify the size of their firm by three categories, namely: (1) less than 50 people, (2) less than 250 people, and (3) more than 250 people. For the gathered data, only 19 respondents work within a firm that contains less than 50 people. Also, only 10 respondents fell into the second category: less than 250 people. A majority of the respondents chose category 3, namely 81 people. Due to this bad division, it has been chosen

30 to combine category 1 and 2 (small and middle size firms) against the third category (large firms).

31

Me ans, Standard de viations, and Corre lations

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 PACAP 5.56 .66 (.71) RACAP 5.00 .85 .52 (.79) Learning 4.04 .51 .40 .50 (.78) Avoid 2.33 .72 -.37 -.31 -.39 (.83) Prove 3.20 .64 .07 .19 .26 -.01 (.67) POS 5.46 .80 .23 .30 .28 -.28 .02 (.83)

4. Analyses and Results

4.1

Correlation matrix

The table below presents the descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables in this study.

Table 1. Correlation matrix.

n = 110.

Numbers in parentheses on the diagonal are the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the scales. Correlations above .26 are significant at P < .01

Correlations above .31 are significant at P < .001

4.2

Harman’s single factor test

To test for Common Method Bias (CMB), Harman’s single factor test has been used as it is the most widely used method in literature (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Harman’s single factor test forces the normal EFA into a single factor and checks whether the first component accounts for less than 50% of the total variance explained. Harman’s single factor has been used for the three subscales of goal orientation, individual-level PACAP and

32 RACAP, and perceived organizational support. For all variables accounted that the first component explained less than 50% of the total variance, indicating that no evidence for common method bias has been found.

4.3

Regression

To test the first six hypotheses (figure 2), hierarchical regression analyses have been performed using SPSS. Running the regressions with the four control variables described in Chapter 3 showed that education, tenure, and firm size do not have any significant effects. As the sample size is quite small and the number of variables included in the regression may influence statistical power, it has been decided to leave these three controls out of the regressions. To assure that the left-out controls have no effect, each of the regressions has also been performed with all controls together, as well as each control independently. It has been found that only age has a considerable influence on the outcomes and, therefore, only the different age categories have been included as control variables. The results of the hierarchical regression are reported in table 2, page 36. The first (left) part of the table reports the effects on individual-level PACAP. The second (right) part of the table reports the effects on individual-level RACAP. For both parts accounts that model 1 only contains the control variables, while model 2 reports both the effect of the controls and the independent variables.

33 Hypotheses 1 and 2 relate to the learning goal orientation. Hypothesis 1 predicted that the learning goal would have a positive effect on individual-level PACAP, hypothesis 2 predicted that the learning goal would have a positive effect on individual-level RACAP. As expected, the learning goal (B = 0.376, P = < .01) has a positive and significant effect on PACAP, supporting hypothesis 1. The regression also provides support for hypothesis 2, by indicating a positive and significant relationship between the learning goal (B = 0.707, P = < .001) and RACAP.

Hypotheses 3 and 4 both relate to the avoid goal orientation. Hypothesis 3 predicted that the avoid goal would have a negative influence on individual-level PACAP and hypothesis 4 predicted the avoid goal to have a negative influence on individual-level RACAP. The avoid goal (B = -0.232, P = < .01) has a negative and significant influence on PACAP, providing support for hypothesis 3. The avoid goal (B = -0.163, P = < .05) was also found to have a negative and significant effect on RACAP, supporting hypothesis 4.

Finally, for the hypotheses related to the prove goal orientation, no significant results were found. Hypothesis 5 predicted a positive relationship between the prove goal and individual-level PACAP, while hypothesis 6 predicted a positive relationship between the prove goal and individual-level RACAP. Unfortunately, both hypotheses 5 and 6 cannot be supported.

4.4 Moderation

To test whether POS has a moderating effect on the relationships between the three goal orientations and individual-level PACAP and RACAP, again the hierarchical regression method has been used. Before running the regressions, the independent variables and the moderator have been standardized. Next, for each of the independent variables (the learning goal, the avoid goal, and the prove goal) and the moderator (POS) an interaction term has been created. These interaction terms can be found in model 3 of table 2, page 36. Again, the first

34 (left) part of the table displays the effect of the interaction terms on individual-level PACAP. The second (right) part of the table displays the effects of the interaction terms on individual-level RACAP.

Figure 3. Hypotheses 7 to 12.

Hypotheses 7 and 10 both relate to the learning goal. Hypothesis 7 predicted that POS positively moderates the relationship between the learning goal and individual-level PACAP, while hypothesis 10 predicted that POS positively moderates the relationship between the learning goal and individual-level RACAP. For both moderations the interaction term is not significant and, therefore, hypotheses 7 and 10 cannot be supported.

Unfortunately, the same accounts for hypotheses 8 and 11, that both relate to the avoid goal. Hypothesis 8 predicted that POS positively moderates the relationship between the avoid goal and individual-level PACAP, while hypothesis 11 predicted that POS positively moderates the relationship between the avoid goal and individual-level RACAP.

35 Finally, no significant results are found for hypotheses 9 and 12, that both relate to the prove goal. Hypothesis 9 predicted that POS positively moderates the relationship between the prove goal and individual-level PACAP, while hypothesis 12 predicted that POS positively moderates the relationship between the prove goal and individual-level RACAP.

36

Individual-level PACAP Individual-level RACAP

Variables B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE Controls 0.091 0.233 0.035 0.206 0.084 0.209 Age 30-39 0.181 0.178 0.161 0.164 0.190 0.169 0.394 0.206 0.383 0.187 0.367 0.192 Age 40-49 0.334* 0.158 0.267 0.149 0.304* 0.156 0.251 0.230 0.308 0.209 0.341 0.211 Age 50+ 0.422* 0.175 0.386* 0.166 0.413* 0.170 Independent variables Learning goal 0.376** 0.166 0.367** 0.127 0.707*** 0.157 0.719*** 0.157 Avoid goal -0.232** 0.086 -0.241** 0.088 -0.163* 0.108 -0.186 0.109 Prove goal -0.011 0.096 -0.011 0.097 0.103 0.121 0.113 0.120 Interaction terms

Learning goal x POS 0.047 0.064 0.077 0.080

Avoid goal x POS 0.042 0.061 -0.080 0.075

Prove goal x POS 0.018 0.059 0.034 0.073

R²

R² Change

Mode l 3

Mode l 1 Mode l 2 Mode l 3 Mode l 1 Mode l 2

.031

.065 .263 .270 .037 .297 .329

.065 .199 .007 .037 .261

Table 2. Results of hierarchical regression.

Unstandardized coefficients and standard errors are reported. n = 110 * P < .05 ** P < .01*** P < .001

37

5. Discussion

This studies’ theoretical motivation was to shed light on the thus far mainly neglected motivational antecedents of individual-level ACAP. It attempted to determine how the three different types of goal orientation influence the two dimensions of individual-level ACAP, that is: individual-level PACAP and RACAP. As prior literature has mainly been devoted to conceptualizing and researching firm-level ACAP, another aim of this research was to contribute to the conceptualization of individual-level ACAP. Addressing both the conceptualization and motivational antecedents of individual-level ACAP seemed an important theoretical motivation, as absorptive capacity is developed at the individual-level before it evolves across the firm-level (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Thus, to achieve or enhance absorptive capacity, there first must be clarity on how it can be developed or enhanced at the individual level. Moreover, to explain firm level differences in innovative capability and the creation and sustainability of competitive advantage, a thorough understanding of individual-level ACAP is indispensable. As prior research indicated that the influences of the different types of learning goals may be affected by contextual factors (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) and supportive contextual factors have been found to enhance individuals’ willingness to engage in absorptive capacity (Hinds & Pfeffer, 2001; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), this research also attempted to investigate whether perceived organizational support (POS) has a moderating effect on the relationships between the types of goal orientation and individual-level PACAP and RACAP. This studies’ attempt to clarify prior described issues has several implications.

5.1

Implications

The results reported in the prior chapter indicate that the direct effect of the prove goal on both individual-level PACAP and RACAP as well as the moderating effect of POS were not found

38 to be significant. Therefore, the main research question ‘’What are the effects of the three different types of goal orientation on individual-level ACAP and are these effects moderated by individuals’ perceived organizational support?’’ cannot be answered with full satisfactory, as no statements can be made about the relationship between the prove goal orientation and individual-level ACAP and the moderating role of perceived organizational support. Still, this research makes some important theoretical and practical contributions. First, as empirical research on individual-level ACAP is quite scarce and no commonly excepted conceptualization of the construct exists, this research contributes by highlighting the importance of the construct. The findings contribute to the discussion of how individual-level ACAP should be conceptualized, by providing evidence for dividing it into two factors, that is: individual-level PACAP and individual-level RACAP. Also, as the individual-level ACAP scale developed by Lowik et al. (2012) has not yet been used and tested abundantly, this study provides evidence for its validity. Furthermore, this study contributes to literature on the antecedents of individual-level ACAP by highlighting the importance of motivational antecedents. The handful of researchers that did attempt to investigate individual-level antecedents mainly focused on ability, neglecting the importance of individuals’ motivation. This studies’ finding that the motivational antecedent learning goal orientation positively affects both individual-level PACAP and RACAP is considered its most valuable contribution, as it furthers the understanding of how individual-level ACAP can be enhanced or even developed. Also the negative significant effect of the avoid goal orientation is considered a contribution, as prior research has found both positive (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) and negative effects (Medina, 2017). This study contributes to literature by further substantiating the negative findings, implying that those who seek to enhance absorptive capacity should better not lay their focus on avoid goal-oriented individuals. Furthermore, knowing how each goal influences individual-level ACAP can be advantageous

39 for practitioners. Once practitioners identify which firm members hold a certain goal orientation, they may determine within which of these members valuable knowledge rests and which of them are in a favorable position to gain new external knowledge. Also, this may help them decide which members to place at the interface of both the firm and the external environment, as well as the interfaces of the firm’s subunits. Placing the right members at these interfaces is highly important, as firm-level ACAP is not just the sum of the ACAP levels of the firm’s individuals but depends on the transfer of knowledge throughout the firm (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Furthermore, the recognition of goal orientation in firm members can provide practitioners with direction on how to invest their resources to enhance absorptive capacity. For example, they may provide learning goal-oriented members with extra support and access to external sources, as they are assured these members will contribute to the firm’s absorptive capacity.

The finding that the learning goal positively effects both individual-level PACAP and RACAP may be explained by the fact that learning goal-oriented individuals have a desire to continuously develop the self. Learning goal-oriented individuals seek to acquire and master new skills, which may be linked to the recognition and assimilation dimensions of individual-level PACAP. Also, learning goal-oriented individuals are attempted to improve own competence and bring the learned into practice, which may be linked to the transformation and exploitation dimensions of individual-level RACAP. As prior research indicated that the learning goal orientation leads to higher levels of intrinsic motivation and excitement (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) and enhancing absorptive capacity requires both ability and motivation (Minbaeva et al., 2014), the positive effects of the learning goal on individual-level PACAP and RACAP seem a logic consequence. This studies’ positive findings on the learning goal orientation mainly match prior empirical findings, as those studies that investigated the influences of the learning goal all related it to positive outcomes (Elliot &