TO DEVELOP OR DEMONSTRATE? THE MODERATING INFLUENCE OF TASK COMPLEXITY ON THE RELATION BETWEEN TEAM GOAL ORIENTATION
AND TEAM CREATIVITY
Marvin Neumann s2562391
University of Groningen
February 2018
Msc Program of Human Resource Management
Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
Examiner: dr. Yingjie Yuan
Supervisor: dr. Yingjie Yuan
TO DEVELOP OR DEMONSTRATE? THE MODERATING INFLUENCE OF TASK COMPLEXITY ON THE RELATION BETWEEN TEAM GOAL ORIENTATION
AND TEAM CREATIVITY
ABSTRACT
Organizations are increasingly employing work teams in order to find creative solutions to the complex organizational problems they face. This study’s purpose was to replicate findings by
Shin, Kim and Lee, (2017) in order to verify team goal orientation as a predictor for team creativity. Goal orientation theory was tested in this study because the desire to achieve a goal
should lead members to discuss their ideas and problem-solving strategies, which should enhance idea’s quality. Team reflexivity was expected to mediate the relation between team
goal orientation (learning- and performance goal) and team creativity. It was hypothesized that a learning goal is especially positively linked to team creativity under high task complexity, while a performance goal should be negative associated with team creativity
under high task complexity. 49 teams provided data by filling in a questionnaire that measured team goal orientation, task complexity, team reflexivity, and team creativity.
Supervisors or team leaders rated their teams’ creative performance in a separate questionnaire. It was expected that the results replicate previous findings, showing positive
effects of a team learning- and performance goal orientation on team creativity. Results replicated the positive effect of a team learning goal on team creativity. However, team performance goal had no significant effect and team reflexivity did not mediate the proposed relationships. Exploratory analyses showed that team performance goal orientation was only
positively linked to team creativity under high task complexity. This study adds to the existing theory in that the effect of a learning goal seems to be more robust than for a performance goal, as this depends on task complexity. Practitioners benefit from these results
because they could design jobs in a way that compartmentalizes its task in order to reduce complexity for performance-oriented teams.
Keywords: team goal orientation, task complexity, team reflexivity, team creativity
Introduction
Today’s world is characterized by globalization and an ever increasing digital and technological advancement. It is indispensable for most organizations to foster creativity (Amabile, 1996) in order to stay competitive, to stay agile in an ever faster changing environment, and to find efficient solutions to organizational problems. Very often, great amounts of resources are invested in order to achieve high creative performance. However, organizations fail more often than they wish in building a creative workforce (Sternberg, O’Hara, & Lubart, 1997). Therefore, organizations as well as researchers have spent attention to a variety of factors that might predict creative performance.
In order to attain the creative performance levels that organizations are in dire need of, more and more organizations implement a team-based work design (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
In fact, teams are primary units in which organizations structure their work (DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiechmann, 2004). Therefore, teams are, more often than individuals, employed to create novel and useful ideas. Consequently, it makes sense to take a closer look at team-level factors that might foster or hinder creative performance in teams.
Most studies that have touched upon team creativity, which can be defined as the collective processes and actions through which team members behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally engage in the generation of ideas as well as the identification of problems (Gilson
& Shalley, 2004), followed an input-process-output model. Focusing on inputs for creative team processes, Gilson and Shalley (2004) showed that self-managed work teams that were creative perceived their tasks to require high levels of creativity, were high on shared goals, valued participative problem-solving, had a climate that was supportive of creativity, and held jobs with high task interdependence. Furthermore, team-level inputs such as resources (e.g.
time) and team management, but also team-level processes such as the interaction between team members, team learning, and team development have been documented (see Cirella, Radaelli, & Shani, 2013 for a review). Furthermore, teams usually have a shared idea of what
kind of performance standard they want to achieve. In order to be successful in reaching this performance standard, teams inevitably adopt a certain goal orientation.
According to goal orientation theory, teams’ goal orientation can be classified into learning- (mastery) and performance goals (Elliot, 1999), which are independent goal constructs (Elliot & Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997). While some teams value more the development of competence (learning goal), others value more the demonstration of competence and strive for positive evaluations from others (performance goal). Teams who adopt a learning goal are concerned with the development of competence, the acquisition of new knowledge, learning, and the best performance in comparison to themselves. A
performance goal emphasizes the superiority in comparison to others. Under a performance goal, people try to outperform others as well as to get positively evaluated by others (Elliot &
Church, 1997; Janssen & van Yperen, 2004). Inevitably, teams adopt certain goal orientations, no matter whether they do so consciously or not.
Research adopting a team approach showed that a team learning goal and a team performance goal were positively related to team creativity (Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu, 2013).
Furthermore, the link between a team learning goal and team creativity was stronger for high levels of trust in the relationship with the leader compared to low levels of trust (Gong et al., 2013). In contrast, a performance goal was only detrimental to individual- and team creativity under low levels of trust. In a similar vein, a team learning orientation as well as a
performance orientation both equally and positively predicted team reflexivity, which in turn predicted team creativity (Shin, Kim, & Lee, 2017). The main motive of this study is to replicate the findings by Shin et al. (2017) through testing the effect of team goal orientation on team creativity through team reflexivity.
Though a good amount of studies has already investigated the effect of team goal orientation on creativity, less is known about the situational circumstances under which this effect holds. One of the reasons for the rise of a team-based work structure is the complexity
of problems organizations are faced with in today’s world, which calls for a fundamental collaboration among individuals who strive collectively for the same goal (Salas, Shuffler, Thayer, Bedwell, & Lazzara, 2015). In times of technological advancement where
organizational processes get speeded up, jobs, and especially the tasks they contain become more complex. This depicts a crucial contextual factor for the effect team goal orientations might have on team creativity. While teams with a learning goal might see great potential in complex tasks to develop and broaden their competencies, teams with a performance goal might expect that task demands will exceed their competencies. Thus, the research question is whether team goal orientation influences team creativity differently for different levels of task complexity.
This study will replicate earlier studies (Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu, 2013; Shin, Kim, &
Lee, 2017) by investigating the effect team goal orientation has on team creativity through team reflexivity. Moreover, it will test for boundary conditions (i.e. task complexity) that will become more important in a complex future world. This study will bolster the predictive value of goal orientation theory with regard to team creativity and will create confidence in the previously found results by other studies in case the results can be replicated. Moreover, it will show whether both goal orientations are equally robust across task that differ in
complexity. By this, it will enrich the literature and create awareness for situational factors that might constrain the role goal orientation plays in predicting team creativity.
Practitioners will benefit from this study in that it informs them how different team goal orientations have differential effects under low and high task complexity on team creativity. On a macro level, organizations could strategically integrate the value of competence development into their HR strategy and their corporate values, which in turn might attract prospective employees that value continuous competence development more than others. On a micro level, team leaders could intentionally introduce, depending on the design of the task, the fitting team goal orientation as these can be situationally influenced
(Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). For example, transformational leadership could motivate team members via intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. By providing team members with new perspectives on problems and by highlighting the advantages that goal orientations might have in developing these perspectives themselves, leaders could steer their teams’ goal development while taking individual needs into account.
Furthermore, this study should guide their attention to the strength a situational factor like task complexity might have. One aspect that practitioners could strategically influence and alter is job design. By enriching the knowledge about the relationship between team goal orientations and team creativity under different levels of task complexity, practitioners can design tasks in a way that can leverage the power of both types of team goal orientation. For example, by decomposing highly complex tasks in order to leverage the power of a
performance goal.
Theory and Hypotheses Team creativity
With the increasing deployment of teams in organizations over the last two decades, team creativity has gained relevance in that teams actively seek to find creative solutions to all sorts of organizational problems. Creativity in general has often been defined as the production of original and feasible ideas with regard to products, procedures, and processes (Shin & Zhou, 2007). This approach that focuses on the generation of creative products is to be distinguished from the problem-solving approach, in which social processes play a major role (Amabile, 1983, Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). With teams as the focal unit of study, the processes that teams engage in become part of an ultimate organizational solution to a problem. Thus, team creativity can be also defined as the team’s processes like problem identification, the
discussion of ideas with others, or general attempts to contradict what is normally expected (Torrance, 1998). In this sense, teams’ creative group processes encompass the tendency to explore unknown areas in order to find unique solutions to a problem as well as the attempt to
combine input from multiple sources to eventually solve an organizational problem (Amabile, 1996; Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999). As organizations tend to adopt a team-based structure, creative performance can be seen as the collective goal-oriented behaviors of these team members (Alexander & van Knippenberg, 2014).
In a seminal meta-analysis, input variables such as task interdependence or team size showed rather weak effects on team creativity while team process variables (i.e. processes that characterize and shape the group dynamics and behavior) like support for innovation, vision, task orientation, and external communication displayed strong relationships with creativity (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). Importantly, process variables exerted a stronger effect on creativity at the team level than at the individual level. With regard to this study, these findings suggest that the process variable team reflexivity might be especially important in predicting team creativity. Other research has investigated the effect leadership has on team creativity and found that transformational leadership is more effective (compared to transactional leadership) with regard to idea generation (Rosing, Frese, & Bausch, 2011;
Shin & Zhou, 2007).
When teams are created to find novel solutions to problems, leaders and team
members formulate specific goals they want to achieve. Importantly, the way in which these goals are framed, and which core values underlie these goals, should determine team
members’ cognitions and their actions. Even though goals do not feed into creative group processes alone, they can do so differently, depending on the focus of the goal. In a broader sense, organizations and team leaders could for example formulate that teams’s goal should be to increase creative performance in order to benefit the company and to create a
competitive advantage. However, such a goal raises the question to what exactly teams should compare themselves to when judging whether they increased their performance. A construct that covers these different comparison standards is team goal orientation.
Team goal orientation
Team goal orientation can be defined as “a collective state representing team members’
shared perceptions of the goals pursued by their team” (Shin, Kim, & Lee, 2017, p. 655).
Researchers who adopt the three-dimension typology of goal orientation further distinguish between performance approach- and avoidance goals, where the latter is usually negatively related to creativity (Elliot & Church, 1997; Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu, 2013). Since differences in findings between studies that investigate goal orientation theory often revolve around the relative differences between a learning- and a performance approach goal, this study will only consider these two dimensions, trying to identify contextual factors that separate their effects more clearly and by this providing a more nuanced view of team goal orientation as a
predictor. The performance approach goal is thus hereinafter called simply performance goal.
In general, a learning goal should be positively related to team creativity because teams who adopt a learning goal like to learn and like to develop their competencies, which they do by giving their own input, but also by accepting and critically evaluating the input of others (Mehta, Feild, Armenakis, & Mehta, 2009). Team members are thus likely to exercise mutual support because they perceive problem-solving processes as an opportunity to learn.
Therefore, they should discuss creative ideas more in-depth (Alexander & van Knippenberg, 2014). Moreover, the focus on competence development implies an intrinsic motivation to understand and master the task at hand (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). This intrinsic motivation, in turn, facilitates deeper engagement with the task, which is often conducive to creativity (Amabile, 1996). Furthermore, the association between a learning orientation and challenging tasks (VandeWalle, 1997) suggests that a learning orientation helps in enjoying the difficult task and in persisting to explore alternative solutions. Another reason for why a learning goal orientation should be linked to team creativity is that teams with a learning goal orientation deal more constructively with any barriers that might avoid goal attainment (Dweck, 2000).
When facing those barriers, teams with a learning goal orientation will likely invest additional effort and show greater persistence in order to perform creative problem-solving activities,
which in turn should increase the chances of overcoming the barrier and ultimately acquire new knowledge (Dweck, 2000).
Similarly, teams who adopt a performance goal should show greater creative performance because interdependent team members who have as their goal a positive evaluation from others as well as the desire to be superior should be motivated to reflect on the input they share in order to eventually demonstrate their level of competence. The goal of receiving positive evaluations from external people creates a bonding under team members and unifies them, which motivates the team to share task-related information, reflect on its strategies, and to use suggested input for further idea development in order to eventually show superior performance compared to others (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan, 1991).
Hypothesis 1a: A team learning goal is positively related to team creativity.
Hypothesis 1b: A team performance goal is positively related to team creativity.
Eventually, both teams, make sure that team members’ input gets critically evaluated and discussed, albeit due to different underlying motivations. Those teams that predominantly adopt a learning goal want to develop competence (learning goal) and teams that
predominantly adopt a performance goal want to demonstrate competence (performance goal). What both goal orientations should share is thus the mechanism through which these orientations exert their effect on team creativity. When teams have adopted goal orientations, they engage in a comparison between their status quo and the desired state according to the goal. This is followed by a phase in which team members plan actions through contemplation in order to ultimately achieve the goal (West, 2000). A construct that covers the likely
underlying process behaviors is team reflexivity because reflective teams engage in discussion and the critical evaluation of the proposed ideas by individual team members, which should increase idea’s quality. Through reflective processes, teams reconcile their performance standard with the formulated goal.
Team reflexivity
Team reflexivity can be defined as “the extent to which team members collectively reflect upon and adapt their objectives, strategies, and processes” (West, 1996, p. 559). Thus, team reflexivity includes behaviors that are concerned with the discussion of suggested ideas like questioning, critically evaluating, arguing, analyzing, and using suggested input
intentionally in order to work towards the group’s shared goal. These processes will in turn trigger the exploration of diverging perspectives and opinions, which should lead to higher quality in decisions as well as proposed ideas (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). Team reflexivity constitutes an important antecedent of team creativity as teams that engage in reflective processes adapt their strategies faster and more accurately, but also learn from mistakes and achievements and incorporate these insights into their problem-solving
strategies (Schippers, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2007; West, 1996). Highly reflective teams take into account past experiences during task execution, discuss and reflect on them, and by this establish diverse viewpoints under its members, which ultimately benefits team creativity because a broader range of cognitive categories gets explored (Schippers, Den Hartog,
Deanne, Koopman, & van Knippenberg, 2008; Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, & Baas, 2010).
Furthermore, based on DeShon’s multi-level model (2004), team reflexivity should constitute a team regulatory process in the relationship between team goal orientation and team
creativity because it spurs the monitoring of the team’s goal attainment and the analysis of potential discrepancies between the status quo and the team’s ultimate goal. Teams with a primary learning orientation should engage in reflexivity processes as they allow them to learn from previous mistakes and to develop competence in the long run. Teams with a primary performance orientation, on the other hand, should mainly engage in reflexivity because the subsequent idea exchange and discussion of those ideas supports the attainment of the team’s goal, which is the favorable assessment by others (Shin, Kim, & Lee, 2017).
In relation to team creativity, teams showed greater creative performance (idea generation) when they actually reflected on the ideas that were exchanged (Paulus & Yang, 2000). Shin (2014) showed that team reflexivity significantly predicted team creativity and acted as a mediator between positive group affective tone and team creativity. In a laboratory study, when teams received collective rewards, team membership change led to team
reflexivity, which in turn was related to team creativity (Wu, Nijstad, & Yuan, 2017). Most importantly, Shin, Kim, and Lee (2017) found that team reflexivity mediated the relationship between team goal orientation (learning- & performance goal) and team creativity.
In sum, a learning- and a performance goal should motivate teams to engage in critical reflections and discussions of suggested ideas as those cognitive processes will ultimately help them to attain their goal and build the bridge between the team’s goal and the current performance status by monitoring and recognizing performance gaps on which they ultimately act upon. Eventually, extending and combining individuals’ knowledge and abilities should foster team creativity.
Hypothesis 2: Team reflexivity mediates the effect of a team learning- and performance goal on team creativity.
It has been hypothesized that team reflexivity constitutes the underlying mechanism for both a team learning- and performance goal. However, teams who adopt a performance goal might fear that their reputation and competence perception is in danger if they perceive a task to be extremely complex (Deemer, Yough, & Morel, 2017; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot
& McGregor, 2001). The uncertainty of highly complex tasks renders the estimation of the likelihood to succeed at a task more difficult. On the other hand, teams who adopt a learning goal might embrace these highly complex tasks due to the various learning opportunities they offer. As the tasks that teams need to perform become increasingly complex and require problem solving at a more abstract level, task complexity gains importance. Furthermore, highly complex tasks should invite teams with a learning goal orientation to spot
discrepancies between their status quo and their desired performance standard in order to pinpoint where these tasks offer skill acquisition. Teams with a performance goal orientation, however, might be afraid of experiencing substantial performance differences through
reflective processes, which is why they should not engage in them in the first place.
Task complexity – moderating the indirect effect of team goal orientation on team creativity through team reflexivity
While both a learning goal and a performance goal have been shown to predict team reflexivity, which in turn was related to team creativity, it is likely that these two goal orientations have different effects on team reflexivity depending on how complex the task itself is. Teams who adopt a learning goal value the development of competence and thus do not fear tasks that are highly complex because they see the learning potential that is inherent in such complex tasks. As the social-cognitive process of reflexivity should enable teams to enrich their knowledge and to broaden their perspectives, teams with a learning goal will engage in this interaction process no matter how complex the task might seem. In fact, they should be even more motivated to reflect and discuss as a team if the task is highly complex because this situation offers more opportunities to learn than simple, repetitive tasks (Shin, Kim, & Lee, 2017). In line with this, research showed that individuals who adopt a learning goal show a preference for complex, challenging tasks (Ames & Archer, 1988; VandeWalle, 1997).
On the other hand, teams who adopt a performance goal are concerned with the evaluation of others regarding their performance. Their main goal is thus not do develop competence in the first place, but to demonstrate competence to others (Elliot & Church, 1997). This, however, might be extremely difficult for highly complex tasks because they bear greater potential for failure. Consequently, teams with a performance goal are likely to not even engage in reflexivity in the first place because the task demands could easily exceed their level of competence, which would result in failure and thus a negative evaluation by
others. Eventually, they might reject reflecting or working on the task in order to maintain their reputation of competence.
Taken together, whether, or to which extent, teams engage in reflexivity processes should depend on the complexity of the task. For high task complexity, performance-oriented teams should refrain from engaging in reflexivity because this would signal an attempt of working on the task, on which they are more likely to fail compared to a task that is less complex. For low task complexity, performance-oriented teams should engage in reflexivity processes because they see a fairly likely chance of attaining positive evaluations from others if they closely collaborate as a team and monitor each other’s input.
Teams who have adopted a learning goal should engage even more in reflective processes and subsequently show more creative performance under high task complexity because these tasks provide them with valuable uncertainty that sparks discussions that foster competence development, which in turn should lead to creative performance. As teams with salient learning goals do persist on the task at hand and develop effective problem-solving strategies to combat potential barriers (Dweck, 2000), they are expected to engage in team reflexivity because they are less discouraged by the challenges highly complex tasks provide.
Under low task complexity, teams with a primary learning goal orientation will also engage in reflective team processes and eventually show greater creative performance, albeit less than under high task complexity as the completion of the task is simpler and requires less reflective processes to solve the task.
Hypothesis 3: A team learning goal has a stronger positive effect on team reflexivity and in turn on team creativity for high task complexity (compared to low task complexity). A team performance goal has a negative effect on team reflexivity and in turn on team creativity for high task complexity, while it has a positive effect for low task complexity.
Method Participants
Out of all the companies that have been approached for data collection, 73 provided us with contact information of the teams that were willing to participate. A 75% response rate of every team was required to qualify a team for further analysis, meaning that at least 75% of the team members must have filled in the questionnaire. Consequently, the final dataset consisted of 49 teams that fulfilled this requirement, which yields a 67,12% response rate.
The organizations that were approached belong to various industry sectors like manufacturing, finance, art, retail, civil service, and wholesale.
In total, 244 team members (82 male, 162, female) with an age range from 17 to 75 (M = 39.17, SD = 13.07) filled in an online survey that measured team goal orientation, task complexity, team reflexivity, task interdependence and demographics. The average
organizational tenure for team members was M = 8.54, SD = 16.07. The average team tenure for team members was M = 3.93, SD = 13.29.
In total, 49 team leaders (22 male, 27 female) with an age range from 21 to 60 (M = 41.56, SD
= 11.50) have been on average the leader of their team for M = 5.14 years, SD = 4.98. The mean organizational tenure was M = 10.57, SD = 7.44.
Procedure
Two separate online questionnaires were prepared, one for team leaders and one for team members. Companies were contacted through the students’ network or through other strategies (e.g. cold calling) and were asked whether they would like to participate. To increase the response rate and to offer companies a quick overview of our research, a short document was sent to the companies that explained key facts like data security issues,
duration, and potentially added value of the research for the company. After confirmation, the team leader or another spokesperson of the company filled in an Excel-table with the team’s contact information, including e-mail addresses and names and sent this information back to the researchers. Questionnaires were subsequently sent out to the team leaders and team members. Reminder e-mails were sent in case response rates remained too low. The first page
of the questionnaire showed an informed consent form that participants had to read in order to continue. In the end, participants could indicate their e-mail addresses in case they liked to receive a summary of the study’s results.
Independent Variables
Team goal orientation. Team learning goal orientation was assessed by using an adapted version of VandeWalle’s (1997) original scale that has already been shifted from an individual level to a team level by Bunderson and Sutcliffe, (2003). Five items (a = .88) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) assessed the team learning goal orientation. A sample item is “Our team looks for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge”. The team performance goal orientation was also assessed with five items (a = .77) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is
“Our team would rather prove its ability on a task that it can do well than to try a new task”.
Analyses were performed to ensure that aggregation to the team level was justified (Bliese, 2000) and showed that this was indeed the case (rwg = .94, ICC(1) = .876, ICC(2) = .877). The questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.
Measures and Dependent Variables
Task complexity. To assess task complexity, a four-item scale by Maynard and Hakel (1997) was used. On a 7-point Likert scale, participants indicated how much they agree with the stated items (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The scale showed an excellent internal consistency (a = .92). Analyses were performed to ensure that aggregation to the team level was justified (Bliese, 2000) and showed that this was indeed the case (rwg = .87, ICC(1) = .912, ICC(2) = .913). A sample item is “Our team tasks are complex”. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.
Team reflexivity was assessed using an 8-item scale based on Carter and West (1998). On a 7 -point Likert scale, participants indicated how accurately each statement reflects the way their team functions (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). A sample
item is “The team often reviews its objectives”. The scale showed good internal consistency (a = .73) after deleting the fourth item of the questionnaire. Analyses were performed to ensure that aggregation to the team level was justified (Bliese, 2000) and showed that this was indeed the case (rwg = .96, ICC(1) = .355, ICC(2) = .359). The questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.
Team creativity will be assessed using a four-item scale by Shin and Zhou (2007).
Team leaders rated their teams on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely bad; 7 = extremely good), of which a sample item is “How well does your team produce new ideas?”. The scale showed good internal consistency (a = .85).
Control variables. At the team-level, perceived team task interdependence was controlled for as previous research has shown that this variable can affect collaboration and the creative process (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003). Perceived team task interdependence was measured with five items (a = .71) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Analyses were performed to ensure that aggregation to the team level was justified (Bliese, 2000) and showed that this was indeed the case (rwg = .96, ICC(1) = .686, ICC(2) = .693). A sample item is “I need information and advice from my colleagues to perform my job well”. The item list can be found in Appendix D.
Results Descriptives and Correlations
Table 1 shows the main variables, its descriptive statistics and the correlations.
Team creativity
Team learning goal orientation.
Regression analyses1 were used to test all hypotheses. Team learning goal orientation, task complexity and team reflexivity were entered as independent variables, team creativity was entered as the dependent variable and perceived task interdependence was controlled for, based on its zero-order correlation with team learning goal orientation. To test the moderated-
mediation model, model 7 of the Process macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013) was used in which team reflexivity was regressed on team learning goal orientation, task complexity, the interaction2 between team learning goal orientation and task complexity, and perceived task interdependence was controlled for. The model did not explain a significant amount of variance in team reflexivity F(3,45) = 1.48, p = .223, Table 2. Team learning goal orientation did not significantly predict team reflexivity (B = 0.18, SE = 0.11, p = .116) nor did task complexity (B = 0.02, SE = 0.31, p = .882), the interaction between team learning goal orientation and task complexity (B = -0.08, SE = 0.08, p = .278), and perceived task interdependence (B = -0.04, SE = 0.11, p = .69).
In the next step, team creativity was regressed on team learning goal orientation, team reflexivity and perceived task interdependence. The model explained a significant amount of variance in team creativity, F(3,45) = 5.15, p = .004, R2 = .256). Team learning goal
orientation was significantly related to team creativity, (B = 0.42, SE = 0.12, p = .001). Team reflexivity (B = 0.05, SE = 0.17, p = .746) as well as perceived task interdependence were however not significantly related to team creativity (B = -0.06, SE = 0.11, p = .608).
As it was hypothesized that a team learning goal orientation is positively linked to team creativity, the results support hypothesis 1.
To test the conditional indirect effect, bootstrap samples (N = 5000) were used to create 95% confidence intervals. Indirect effects were estimated at the mean of the moderator and one standard deviation below and above this mean. For low values of task complexity (i.e. -1 SD), team reflexivity did not significantly mediate the relationship between team learning goal orientation and team creativity (B = 0.01, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.077, 0.13]). At the mean value of task complexity, there was also no significant indirect effect (B = 0.01, SE
= 0.03, 95% CI [-0.051, 0.098]) and similarly for high values of task complexity (i.e. +1 SD) (B = 0.01, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.042, 0.078]). Consequently, the index of moderated
mediation was not significant either (B = -0.01, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.051, 0.034]).
It was hypothesized that team learning goal orientation would be linked to team creativity through team reflexivity, and this effect was expected to be stronger under high values of task complexity than under low values of task complexity. However, irrespective of task complexity values, team reflexivity did not mediate the link between team learning goal orientation and team creativity. This suggests that part of hypothesis 3 could not be supported.
Team performance goal orientation.
Team performance goal orientation, task complexity and team reflexivity were entered as independent variables and team creativity was entered as the dependent variable. To test the moderated-mediation model, again model 7 of the Process macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013) was used in which team reflexivity was first regressed on team performance goal orientation, task complexity, and the interaction between team performance goal orientation and task complexity. The model did not explain a significant amount of variance in team reflexivity F(3,45) = 1.13, p = .345, Table 3. Team performance goal orientation did not significantly predict team reflexivity (B = 0.03, SE = 0.09, p = .693) nor did task complexity (B = 0.14, SE
= 0.09, p = .121) and the interaction between team performance goal orientation and task complexity (B = -0.07, SE = 0.08, p = .386).
In the next step, team creativity was regressed on team performance goal orientation and team reflexivity. The model did not explain a significant amount of variance in team creativity, F(2,46) = 0.91, p = .409, R2 = .256. Team performance goal orientation was not significantly related to team creativity (B = -0.04, SE = 0.11, p = .737) nor was team
reflexivity (B = 0.24, SE = 0.19, p = .203). It was hypothesized that a team performance goal orientation is positively linked to team creativity. However, the results did not show a significant effect of team performance goal orientation on team creativity, which is why hypothesis 2 does not receive support.
As for team learning goal orientation, the conditional indirect effect was tested for low, middle, and high values of the moderator. For low values of task complexity, team
reflexivity did not significantly mediate the relationship between team performance goal orientation and team creativity (B = 0.02, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.045, 0.14]). At the mean value of task complexity, there was also no significant indirect effect (B = 0.01, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.058, 0.08]), similarly for high values of task complexity (B = -0.01, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.159, 0.054]). Consequently, the index of moderated mediation was not significant either (B = -0.01, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.121, 0.025]).
It was hypothesized that team performance goal orientation is linked to team creativity through team reflexivity and this relation should be negative for high values of task
complexity and positive for low values of task complexity. However, there was no significant mediation, irrespective of different task complexity values. Consequently, hypothesis 3 could not be supported.
Exploratory analysis
Though I could not find evidence for a moderated-mediation model, I tested a simple moderation model to check whether there might be significant direct paths from the independent variables to team creativity.
Team learning goal orientation.
To test the simple moderation model, team creativity was regressed on team learning goal orientation, task complexity, the interaction between team learning goal orientation and task complexity, and perceived task interdependence as a control variable. The model explained a significant amount of variance in team creativity, F(4,44) = 3.98, p = .008, R2 = .266, Table 4.
Team learning goal orientation was significantly related to team creativity (B = 0.49, SE = 0.13, p = .001). However, task complexity (B = -0.13, SE = 0.16, p = .418) and the interaction between team learning goal orientation and task complexity (B = -0.05, SE = 0.13, p = .911) were not significant predictors of team creativity.
Team performance goal orientation.
In this model, team creativity was regressed on team performance goal orientation, task complexity, and the interaction between team performance goal orientation and task
complexity. The model explained a significant amount of variance in team creativity F(3,45)
= 3.43, p = .025, R2 = .186, Table 3. There were no significant main effects, neither team performance goal orientation (B = 0.11, SE = 0.12, p = .345) nor task complexity (B = 0.17, SE = 0.11, p = .113) significantly predicted team creativity. However, the interaction effect was significantly related to team creativity (B = -0.27, SE = 0.09, p = .008), Figure 2. Simple slopes analyses showed that, under low task complexity, team performance goal orientation was significantly positively related to team creativity (B = 0.38, SE = 0.18, p = .038). Under high task complexity however, team performance goal orientation was not significantly related to team creativity and even showed a negative trend (B = -0.15, SE = 0.12, p = .208).
Moreover, under a low team performance goal orientation, task complexity was significantly positively related to team creativity (B = 0.44, SE = 0.14, p = .004). Under a high team
performance goal orientation however, task complexity was unrelated to team creativity (B = - 0.10, SE = 0.15, p = .500).
Discussion
It was hypothesized that a team learning goal orientation is positively linked to team
reflexivity, which in turn was predicted to positively relate to team creativity. This is because a learning goal orientation should motivate team members to engage in reflective processes as this helps the team to monitor its strategies, input, and discrepancies between its current performance and the desired goal. Subsequently, the team can engage in trying out new ideas and alternatives from which they learn and ultimately develop competence. It was also hypothesized that a performance goal orientation is positively linked to team reflexivity and in turn to team creativity because the team increases its chances to demonstrate competence if it reflects on its strategy and ideas.
Team reflexivity did not mediate the effect of team learning goal orientation on team creativity. However, team learning goal orientation had a significant direct positive effect on team creativity. Similarly, team reflexivity did not mediate the relationship between team performance goal orientation and team creativity. Moreover, there was also no direct effect of team performance goal orientation on team creativity.
Moreover, it was hypothesized that the mediation effect is moderated by task complexity. In detail, it was expected that a team learning goal orientation has a stronger positive effect on team reflexivity and in turn on team creativity under high task complexity (compared to low task complexity) because the challenges that are inherent in highly complex tasks allow for more competence development, which teams with a primary learning
orientation strive for. On the one hand, it was hypothesized that teams with a performance goal orientation engage in reflective processes and show creative performance under low task complexity because it offers them the chance to demonstrate competence fairly easy if no challenging tasks with barriers are to be expected. On the other hand, for teams with a performance goal orientation it was expected that they engage less in team reflexivity and in turn show less creative performance under high task complexity because they fear failing at a highly complex task that contains a lot of uncertainty and risk. So, any attempt to engage in activities that are conducive to problem solving like task reflexivity would show that the team tried to work on a task but might fail to demonstrate its competence.
It turned out that task complexity did not moderate the relationship between a learning- and performance goal orientation and team reflexivity. However, exploratory
analyses showed that there was a significant interaction effect between team performance goal orientation and task complexity on team creativity. This relationship turned out to be partially in line with the hypothesis, albeit team reflexivity was no significant mediator in this model.
As hypothesized, team performance goal orientation had a significant positive effect on team creativity under low task complexity. However, team performance goal orientation was not
significantly negatively related to team creativity under high task complexity. Though, under a low team performance goal orientation, task complexity was significantly positively related to team creativity, while there was no effect under a high team performance goal orientation.
With regard to my theory, results confirmed that team goal orientation constitutes an important antecedent to team creativity, albeit in a more nuanced way than hypothesized. In line with previous studies (Gong et al., 2013; Shin et al., 2017), team learning goal orientation was significantly positively correlated with team creativity, even after controlling for task interdependence. However, the main effect for a performance goal orientation did not occur and suggests that the conditions under which it does predict team creativity (Gong et al., 2013; Shin et al., 2017) are less stable. Adding to the existing theory, I showed that whether a performance goal orientation is associated with team creativity depends on the complexity of the team’s task.
Still, the question remains why team reflexivity did not turn out to be a significant mediator in the relationship between goal orientation and team creativity. Especially surprising is that team reflexivity did not mediate this relationship under high task complexity, as it was found earlier that teams who are working on tasks that are highly
complex especially benefit from team reflexivity (Tjosvold, Tang, & West, 2004). Potentially, team goal orientation exerted its influence on team creativity through other mechanisms like knowledge sharing or information exchange (Gong et al., 2013). However, team reflexivity was used as mediator based on the argument that team members also need to act upon the shared knowledge and constructively integrate it into the team’s strategy, which is why pure knowledge sharing might not be enough. What is striking is the high correlation between perceived task interdependence and a team learning goal orientation. Some teams that
perceive their task to be highly interdependent might want to avoid relational conflict. Indeed, research has shown that relational conflict is associated with lower task interdependence, partly due to lower trust levels (Langfred, 2007). Reflective processes can be annoying and
experienced as aversive for some people because effective reflection might have as its consequence that previously pursued strategies need to be adapted or dropped altogether.
People with a high need for cognitive closure might be especially annoyed by this as they are motivated to seek definite views of problems and demonstrate urgency to achieve closure quickly, i.e. settle on a strategy that the team holds on to (Leone, Wallace, & Modglin, 1999).
Taken together, this study was able to replicate the main effect of a learning goal orientation on team creativity and thereby provides further evidence of the robustness of goal orientation theory as a predictor of team creativity. With regard to a performance goal
orientation, the main effect that was found in previous studies could not be replicated, though it was shown that its effect is conditional on the task’s complexity. Therefore, future research should systematically concentrate more on this dimension of goal orientation theory. From a practical point of view, of a lot of situations (e.g. sports competition, competition under class mates) can elicit a performance goal orientation. To enrich the relevant literature, future research should investigate how performance goal orientations work in these settings.
Practical Implications
The results of this study highlight the importance of goal orientations in predicting team creativity. Practitioners who value creative performance and want to create
circumstances that foster it should spend attention to the goals teams adopt. By embodying a learning orientation as a role model, leaders could intentionally highlight the value of a team learning goal orientation. Furthermore, leaders could establish a culture that values the
development of competencies by designing an appraisal system that allows for the exploration of new alternatives to solve organizational problems. Dependent on the abundance of
resources, organizations could offer trainings to employees that diverge in their content and by this ensure the acquisition of relevant, new knowledge. Lastly, practitioners could leverage the potential of different goal orientations by job design. If performance goal orientations seem to be very prevalent and difficult to change in the near future, practitioners could try to
compartmentalize highly complex tasks because this would reduce the likelihood of failure on its sub-parts, which might more easily invite teams with a strong performance goal orientation to engage in these tasks.
Limitations
From a statistical point of view, this study might have been underpowered with a total sample size of 49 teams, meaning that the chance might have been rather low to find an effect if the proposed relationships were in fact true.
Moreover, this study deployed a correlational design only, which renders it impossible to draw causal conclusions regarding the effects that have been found in this study.
Irrespective of the limitations, this study demonstrated an important boundary condition for the effect of performance goal orientation on team creativity, which sheds more light on the discussion on relative differences between a team learning goal- and a team performance goal orientation that have been discussed in previous studies (Gong et al., 2013; Mehta et al., 2009;
Shin et al., 2017). However, as this study to a great extent replicated previous findings (Shin et al., 2017), including the dimension of a performance-avoidance goal would have enriched this replication. Still, as research has shown that performance-avoidance goals are negatively related to team creativity, a closer look for different values of task complexity might not have changed the effect drastically. I tentatively assume that the negative effect of a performance avoidance goal orientation on team creativity would be strengthened under high values of task complexity as those teams already try to avoid any attempts that could lead to failures and mistakes (VandeWalle, 1997). However, this hypothesis needs to be put to the test.
Furthermore, sample characteristics might play an important role in the outcome of this study. Surprisingly much research on goal orientation and team creativity comes from Eastern cultures. Research has shown that a learning goal orientation is consistently the most important predictor of positive outcomes like for example motivational engagement, while there is more cross-cultural variation for a performance goal orientation as a predictor (King,
McInerney, & Nasser, 2017). This might also offer an explanation for the replication of the effect a learning goal orientation had on team creativity, and the null finding for a
performance goal orientation.
Lastly, ratings of team creativity were provided by the team leaders, which questions the reliability of these ratings as leaders might have given socially desirable answers. As team leaders are often responsible for the team’s performance, they might have been motivated to provide high team creativity scores, especially because I knew to which organization they belong. This might have depicted a crucial motivation to present the team and the
organization in a positive light.
Future Directions
Future research should deeper investigate the mechanisms through which goal
orientations exert their influence on team creativity. Furthermore, more experimental research would shed light on the causal relations between team goal orientations and team creativity.
Follow-up studies could for example manipulate team goal orientations and situationally induce them by means of an adapted version of Shahaf’s (1994) building bridges task (Unger- Aviram & Erez, 2016). Moreover, measuring personal need for closure could shed light on potential moderating effects in the relation between team goal orientations and team reflexivity and by this rule out an explanation for this null finding.
Conclusion
Goal orientation theory provides a valuable framework for the prediction of team creativity. Still, mediating variables such as team reflexivity need to be more thoroughly tested in order to be able to make robust statements regarding its relevance. A team learning goal orientation has proven to be a significant predictor for team creativity, which replicates earlier findings. The picture for a team performance goal orientation is less clear and shows that teams with performance goals are able to show high creative performance. However, their performance is subject to the task’s complexity.
References
ALEXANDER, L., & VAN KNIPPENBERG, ,DAAN. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal orientation perspective. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 423- 438. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0044
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential
conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to 'the social psychology of creativity.'.
Boulder, CO, US: Westview Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy- ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1996-97996-000&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. J. Klein (Ed) &
S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed) (Eds.), (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2000-16936-008&site=ehost- live&scope=site
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcljffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 552-560.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.552
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Hernández-Lara, A. B., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). The relationship between top management teams and innovative capacity in companies. Journal of Management Development, 24(8), 683-705. doi:10.1108/02621710510613726
Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. (2014). Do high-commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel combinational approach to employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 665-680. doi:10.1037/a0035679
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R.Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223-267. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27006-0
Cirella, S., Radaelli, G., & Shani, A. B. (. (2014). Team creativityA complex adaptive
perspective. Management Research Review, 37(7), 590-614. doi:10.1108/MRR-12-2012- 0261
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences., 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2002-18109-000&site=ehost- live&scope=site
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.
doi:10.1177/014920639702300303
Deemer, E. D., Yough, M., & Morel, S. A. (2017). Performance-approach goals, science task preference, and academic procrastination: Exploring the moderating role of competence perceptions. Motivation and Emotion, doi:10.1007/s11031-017-9649-z
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. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.89.6.1035
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286-307. doi:10.2307/259083
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286-307. doi:10.2307/259083
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development Philadelphia, PA etcetera] : Psychology Press, 2000]. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat06042a&AN=rug.782882503&site=ehost- live&scope=site
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 X 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218-232.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams' engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4), 453-470.
doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001
Gong, T., & Choi, J. N. (2016). Effects of task complexity on creative customer behavior.
European Journal of Marketing, 50(5-6), 1003-1023. doi:10.1108/EJM-04-2015-0205
Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self- efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.
GONG, Y., TAE-YEOL, K. I. M., DEOG-RO, L. E. E., & JING, Z. H. U. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827-851. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0177
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029-1045. doi:10.2307/3069328
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2013-21121-000&site=ehost- live&scope=site
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 43-64.
HIRST, G., VAN KNIPPENBERG, ,DAAN, & 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.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308035
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145. doi:10.1037/a0015978
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (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. doi:10.2307/20159587
King, R. B., McInerney, D. M., & Nasser, R. (2017). Different goals for different folks: A cross-cultural study of achievement goals across nine cultures. Social Psychology of Education, 20(3), 619-642. doi:10.1007/s11218-017-9381-2
Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885-900. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279196
Leone, C., Wallace, H., & Modglin, K. (1999). The need for closure and the need for structure: Interrelationships, correlates, and outcomes. The Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 133(5), 553-562.
