The influence of leaders’ achievement orientation on
leaders’ attitude to employee voice: The moderating
role of the expertise of the employee
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Msc. Human Resource Management
Abstract
Studies on management repeatedly accent the importance of employee voice within organizations. Whereas earlier research mainly focused on leaders‟ influences on voicing behavior of employees, the contribution of this paper lies in the leaders‟ responses to employee voice. The present study has been set out to enhance the understanding of leaders‟ achievement orientation and leaders‟ attitude to employee voice by examining a theoretically feasible
moderator of this relationship: the expertise of employees. The hypotheses were tested using a sample of 82 employees and 15 leaders. This study shows evidence for the relationship between the expertise of the employee and leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. Besides, an interaction effect of performance orientation and expertise of the employee on the leader‟s attitude to employee voice was found.
Keywords: Achievement goals, expertise, employee voice.
Introduction
Today‟s business environment is continuously and rapidly changing. To keep up with these changes, managers face increasing challenges in problem solving. Organizations need their employees‟ ideas and creative input to innovate and to enhance organizational effectiveness. Studies on management repeatedly emphasize the importance of employee voice within organizations (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Employee voice can be defined as: ‘the discretionary provision of information intended to improve organizational functioning to
up as outweighing the benefits’ (Detert& Burris ,2007, p. 869). Research on employee voice has shown its positive effects on decision quality, team performance and organizational performance (Burris, 2012). So, employee voice can be seen as important for organizations.
Managers play an important role in this voice process, since they are perceived as having the power to address issues being raised (Detert& Burris, 2007). Research showed that behaviors of leaders can signal how favorable the organizational context is to employee input (Morrison &Milliken, 2000). Employees aim to generate managerial endorsement for their ideas, but in the meanwhile want to avoid any risk to their image. Consequently, this makes that employees more willing to speak up when they perceive managers as being open (Ashford et al, 1998).
Even if employees feel safe to speak up and perceive their managers as being open to employee voice, managers may not always respond accordingly. Despite manager‟s beliefs and behaviors play a large role in developing a climate for voice, research examining how managers actually respond to employee voice is limited. Some leaders have a positive attitude to employee voice, these leaders generate both managerial endorsement for the ideas raised as well as formal rewards for those speaking up. Other leaders have a less positive attitude to employee voice, and see voice as unfavorable. It is important to examine the mechanisms underlying these two different managerial reactions. It is critical to understand when leaders see ideas of employees as positive, or when leaders have a less positive attitude to employee voice.
Leaders‟ beliefs and behaviors towards subordinates might be influenced by the achievement orientation of leaders. The difference among leaders in achievement orientations and the
difference in the way they develop and maintain relationships with others in their work context, might confirm this possible effect (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). The achievementgoal
respond to achievement situations (Elliot, 2005). Two types of achievement orientations can be distinguished: mastery and performance orientations. Mastery orientations are orientations to further develop knowledge or skills with the intention to ultimately „master‟ the given task and are self-referenced (Dweck& Leggett, 1988).Performance orientations are orientations to successfully complete tasks. Someone who is strongly performance orientation aims to succeed in the tasks they perform and focusses on establishing one‟s superiority over others (Button, Mathieu &Zajac, 1996). This study investigates to what extent a leaders‟ achievement orientation might influence the positive of negative attitude of managers to employee voice.
To obtain a better understanding of leaders‟ responses to employee voice, this study examines besides the influence of a leaders‟ achievement orientation, the influence of
employees‟ expertise on their leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. The response of a leader on employee voice depends on a leaders‟ evaluation of the employee who is speaking up. This evaluation is based on the employees overall performance and the potential to positively contribute to the organization (Van Dyne &LePine, 1998). So the expertise of the employee might contribute to the leaders‟ evaluation of the employee. Expertise can be defined as the extent to which the employee who speaks up has the knowledge necessary to come up with valuable ideas (Eagly et al., 1978). This study examines whether this level of expertise of the employee influences the attitude of leaders towards employee voice.
Literature review Achievement goals
Mastery orientations involve an emphasis on intrapersonal standards (i.e., the self), whereas performance orientations are grounded in interpersonal standards (i.e., others) (Dweck, 1986; Elliot, 2005; Nicholls, 1984).In Elliot and McGregor‟s (2001) 2 x 2 achievement goal
framework, these achievement orientations (performance versus mastery) are crossed with „approach‟ versus „avoidance‟ orientations. Approach orientations aim at acquiring positive possibilities, whereas avoidance orientations aim at avoiding negative possibilities. This study focuses on the approach orientations, where mastery approach reflects the desire to develop and gain competence by acquiring new skills and mastering new situations, and a performance approachthe desire to outperform others and demonstrate superior competence (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). For the remainder of this article, the terms „mastery orientation‟ and „performance‟ orientation are used to the approach versions of the achievement orientations. Leaders’ achievement goals and leaders’ attitude to employee voice
framework in achievement settings, as the two orientations have been shown to lead to different processes and outcomes (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1999; Urdan, 1997). So, the differential
achievement orientations may lead to different responses and attitudes of leaders to employee voice.
Hypothesis 1: Mastery orientation will be positively related to leaders’ attitude to employee voice.
In contrast, performance orientation is viewed as a generally maladaptive response. Performance oriented leaders tend to believe that the people‟s attributes are fixed and a product of innate talent (Dweck, 1999). Performance oriented leaders seek easy situations that ensure positive evaluations of their capabilities and tend to rehearse task strategies and familiar task components until they become rapid and automatic (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Such a focus on practicing job components can interfere with the use of new ideas of employees, because these new ideas will disrupt this rehearsing strategy. Besides, leaders with a performance orientation strive to outperform others and to demonstrate superiority (Dweck, 1999). This focus,
characterizing performance oriented leaders may result in a tendency to perceive employees who voice their ideas as a threat, since it may jeopardize the leaders‟ goal to outperform others. They may interpret the ideas of employees as an indication of their own lack of competence compared to their creative subordinates, instead of a valuable source of knowledge.A reaction to threat is to engage in familiar responses to reduce the threat (Staw, Sandelands, and Dutton, 1981). If
suggestions are interpreted as threatening, performance oriented leaders may be more likely to take action to undermine the suggestion and disagree with it.Consequently, given performance oriented leaders‟ focus, will have a negative attitude to the employee voice, which means that the leader is not willing to listen or the use the ideas of the employee.
Hypothesis 2: Performance orientation will be negatively related to leaders’ attitude to employee voice.
Besides leaders‟ achievement orientation, we argue that employees‟ expertise may also affect leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. This statement is strengthened by the study of Van Dyne &Lepine (1998), which concludes that supervisor ratings of employee performance were positively associated with supervisor ratings of voice. Furthermore, Burris (2012) states that there is a relationship between the type of voice and the extent to which managers might be persuaded to endorse the ideas that employees raise and their overall judgments of employee performance. So, the leaders‟ reaction on employee voice depends on the leader‟s evaluation of the employee who speaks up (Burris, 2012). This evaluation is based on the employees‟ image, credibility, and reputation, to acquire the employees‟ overall performance and potential to positively contribute to the organization (Van Dyne &LePine, 1998). The expertise of the employee will also influence this evaluation. As mentioned above, expertise can be defined as the extent to which the employee who speaks up has the knowledge necessary to make valuable suggestions (Eagly et al., 1978). There are two reasons for the influence of expertise on the evaluation of employees. First, when employees speak up about issues related to their expertise, observers are likely to believe that these employees use accurate information to solve the
Hypothesis 3: The level of expertise of the employee will be positively related to the leaders’ attitude to employee voice.
The moderating effect of employees’ expertise
As argued before, the two achievement orientations, mastery and performance, make leaders respond different to employee voice. Mastery oriented leaders are willing to further develop their knowledge or skills. They view their capabilities as malleable and therefore see exploration and learning as possibilities to improve themselves (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). This makes mastery oriented leaders likely to have a positive attitude to employee voice. The level of expertise of the employee might strengthen this relationship. When employees speak upabout an issue related to their expertise, mastery oriented leaders may be more likely to believe that these employees useaccurate information and possess the knowledge necessary to make valuable suggestions. Consequently, mastery oriented leaders may rate voiced ideas of employees with high expertise as more useful and see the ideas as possibilities to improve themselves, or the organization. This makes it likely that mastery oriented leaders will be open to listen to voiced ideas and see these as positive input. Thus, the higher the level of expertise of the employee who speaks up, the more positive the leaders‟ attitude will be towards this employee voice. In case an employee has less expertise, the leader might interpret the ideas of the employee as less useful, as the leader questions on what knowledge the idea is based. As a result, the employees voiced ideas containing invaluable information, will not be used by leaders to improve themselves. Due to this, leaders will see employee voice as less positive when the level of expertise of the
Hypothesis 4: Mastery oriented leaders will have a more positive attitude towards employee voice when the expertise level of the employee is high than when the employee has less expertise.
Hypothesis 5: Performance-oriented leaders will have a more negative attitude to employee voice when the employee who speaks up has a high level of expertise of the specific subject than a when the employee has less expertise.
All the previous mentioned hypotheses are summarized, illustrated by Figure 1.
Expertise of the employee
Performance
Leaders‟ oriented Leaders‟ attitude
achievement to employee
orientation Mastery voice
oriented
Expertise of the employee Figure 1. Conceptual model
Methods Sample and procedure
The relationship between leaders‟ achievement orientation, leaders‟ attitude to employee voice and the expertise of the employee was examined in a field study conducted in 15 Dutch organizations in several branches. The respondents performed a wide range of jobs in different branches, including educational services, health care, retail trade, food services, financial
and their subordinates. The leaders responded to some general questionsand judged statements on their opinion of the level of expertise of their employee. Their achievement orientation was measured by self-reports, through judging statements on achievement orientation. Employees were asked to answer a number ofgeneral questions and to judge statements on the attitude to employee voice of their leaders.
Out of the 102 employees who received the questionnaire, 82 responded by providing reports with ratings of their leaders‟ attitude to employee voice, resulting in a response rate of 79 percent. The complete questionnaires of these 82 participants and their 15 leaders were used to conduct the analyses. Of the employees were 38 males, and 44 were female. Of the respondents fell1.2 percent in the age category 13 to 17 years old, 28 percent of the respondents in the
category 18 to 25 years old, 20.7 percent in the category 26 to 34, 34.1 percent in the category 35 to 54, and 15.9 in the category 55 to 64 years old. Of the all the employees, 6.25 percent worked shorter than half a year in their organization, 16.25 percent worked half a year to two in their organization, 26.25 percent fell in the category 2 to 5 years of tenure, 17.5 percent in the
category 5 to 10 years, and 33.75 percent of the employees worked longer than 10 years in their organization.
Of the leaders were 11 males, and 4 were female. Of the 15 leaders, 13.33 percent fell in the age category 18 to 25 years old, 13.33 percent in the category 26 to 34, 60 percentin the category 35 to 54, and 13.33 of the leaders fell in the category 55 to 64 years old. Of the all the team leaders, 6.67 percent of the leaders worked half a year to two in the organization, 26.67 percent fell in the category 2 to 5 years of tenure, 20 percent in the category 5 to 10 years, and 46.67 percent of the leaders worked longer than 10 years in their organization.
Mastery orientation. Leaders‟ mastery orientation was assessed by administering scales for measuring mastery achievement orientation according to the AGQ-R 3x2 by Elliot et al. (2011). Leaders had to judge the following mastery oriented statements: „It is my goal to
improve myself in my work‟;„In my work I strive to perform better than I have done in the past‟; and „My goal in my work is to outperform myself‟. The leaders had to indicate to what extent each statement is applicable to them, on a 1 (not true) to 7 (very true) scale. The items showed a reliability of .79.
Performance orientation. This variable was measured using three items of theAGQ-R 3x2 scale for measuring achievement orientations, developed by Elliot et al. (2011). The next three items of this scale were used to measure the leaders‟ performance orientation: „My goal in my work is to do a good job in comparison with my colleagues‟; „In my work I am striving to do a good job in comparison with other colleagues‟; „It is my goal to do my work better than other colleagues‟. The leaders had to indicate the extent to which the items were true on them, using a scale on 1 (not true) to 7 (very true). The three items showed a high reliability(α = .89).
Leaders’ attitude to employee voice. This variable was measured using Dunham‟s
Level of expertise of the employee.The leaders had to answer five questions for each employee to measure the level of expertise of the employee. The questions were based on the scaledeveloped by Swasy (1979), and adapted to fit this study. The leaders indicated the level of expertise of their employee by indicating by judging the following statements on a 1 (not true) to 7 (very true) scale:„I trust the judgments of this employee‟; „This employee is an expert in his/her field‟; „This employee has good qualifications‟; „This employee is very competent‟; „This
employee has a lot of knowledge about the work that has to be done‟. The items showed a high reliability (α = .93).
Statistical analysis
To eliminate differences, the independent, the moderator, and the control variables were standardized. To test the influence of the leaders‟ achievement orientation and the influence of the moderator, expertise, a regression analysis was used.
Results
To test the effect of leaders‟ achievement goals and expertise of the employees on leader‟s attitude to employee voice, a variety of statistical analyses were conducted. The descriptive statistics of the study are given, followed by a discussion of the correlations. Next, the hypotheses are tested.
Descriptive statistics, reliability and correlations
.01, p = .95), and performance orientationand the leader‟s attitude to employee voice (r = .04, p = .73).
Table 1
Descriptives of Employee voice, Mastery approach, Performance approach and Expertise (N = 82): means, standard deviation, Pearson’s correlation, and Cronbach’s alpha.
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 1. Mastery approach 5.80 .38 (.79) 2. Performance approach 3.90 1.49 .09 (.89) 3. Expertise of the employee 5.58 .93 -.03 .14 (.93) 4. Leaders‟attitude to employee voice 5.46 .80 .01 .04 .29** (.90)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Test of the hypothesized model
Hierarchical regression analyses consisting of two steps were conducted to test
Hypotheses 1–5. In the first step, the independent variables, mastery orientation, performance orientation, and expertise were entered for the relationship with leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. In this step, the main effects of both the independent variable and the moderating variable were inserted. In the second step, the interaction terms between mastery orientation and
expertise, and performance orientation and expertise were included to test the hypothesized moderating effect on the outcome variables.
to the rejection of hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2. However, a significant effect was found for the effect of expertise of the employee on the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. This was in line with hypothesis 3, which predicted that leaders would have a more positive attitude to employee voice when the employee had a high level of expertise (b = .23, SE = .09, p = .01).Furthermore, effects of interaction of mastery orientation and the expertise of the employee on the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice appeared not to be significant (b= -.50, SE = .09, n.s.). A different result was found for hypothesis 5, the interaction effect of performance orientation and expertise of the employee on the leader‟s attitude to employee voice. As Table 2 shows, a marginal significant interaction effect was found for this effect (b= .14; SE = .08; p = .10).
Table 2
Results of regression analysesa
Leaders’ attitude to employee voice
Steps and variables 1 2
1. Mastery orientation Performance orientation Expertise .01 .00 .23* -.03 0.3 .23* 2. Mastery_orientation*Expertise Performance_orientation*Expertise -.05 .14† ∆𝑅2 .29a .35a Adjusted 𝑅2 .09 .12 a
N=82. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported for the respective regression steps. * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
†Correlation is significant at the .10 level (2-tailed)
Figure 2: Effects of interaction of Performance orientation and Expertise on Leaders’ attitude to employee voice. 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,9 3 3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 Low performance orientation High performance orientation L ea d er s' a tt it u d e to em p loye e voi ce
Low expertise of the employee
Discussion and conclusion
The main goal of the study was to examine the influence of leaders‟ mastery orientationand performance orientation on their attitude to employee voice. Furthermore, I argued that his relation would be moderated by theexpertise of the employee. In this section the findings of the study are discussed and theoretical and practical implications are provided. Moreover, limitations and suggestions for future research are identified. Finally, a conclusion is given.
Summary of results
In this study, the idea was developed and tested that a mastery orientation is positively related with the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice, while a performance orientation is
negatively related to the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. Moreover, the influence of expertise of the employee on leaders‟ attitude to employee voice was tested. Finally, the interaction
between achievement orientation and the expertise of the employee on the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice was tested.
For the influence of mastery and performance orientation on leaders‟ attitude to employee voice, no direct relationships were found. This finding was unexpected since previous studies have shown that mastery oriented individuals view their capabilities as malleable and believe that effort directed toward exploration and learning will lead to self-improvement (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Accordingly, a positive effect of mastery orientation on leaders‟ attitude to employee voice was expected to be found. Research on performance orientation has shown that performance-oriented individuals do not seek challenging situations to ensure positive
ideas will disrupt this rehearsing strategy. Therefore, a less positive effect of performance orientation on leaders‟ attitude to employee voice was expected to be found.We also tested the idea that the level of expertise of an employee is related to the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. Since leaders‟ response to employee voice depends on the leader‟s evaluation of the employee who speaks up (Burris, 2012) and the expertise of the employee will influence this evaluation, a positive relation was expected. The results of this study indeed showed an effect of the expertise of employees on leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. It can be concluded that a higher level of expertise of employeesresults in a more positive attitude to employee voice amongst leaders. Finally, the idea of interaction of the achievement orientations, mastery and performance orientation, and the expertise of the employee on the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice was tested. Expected was a more positive attitude towards employee voice when the leader was mastery oriented and the expertise level of the employee was high. This present survey revealed no significant evidence for this expectation. Performance oriented leaders were expected to show a more negative interaction between this performance orientation and the expertise of the employee on the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. The results indeed suggested amarginal interaction between performance orientation and expertise on the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice, however, this interaction is contrary to the expected one. The results show that performance oriented leaders have a more positive attitude to employee voice when the employee has a high level of expertise, than when the employee has a lower level of expertise.
having a fear of failure and experiencing thoughts of quitting the task (Button, Mathieu &Zajac, 1996). Besides, they tend to accomplish their goal of outperforming others. Due to these
characteristics of performance oriented leaders, they might use voiced ideas of employees as their own ideas. By using these as their own ideas, they want to prevent themselves from failures and reduce the chance of being outperformed by others. When the employee who speaks up has a high level of expertise, this means that the extent to which the employee who speaks up has the knowledge necessary to make valuable suggestions. Performance oriented leaders will be more positive to employee voice of employees with a high level of expertise, since this ensures them that these ideas are more valuable. When performance oriented leaders use these ideas, in all probability, the chance to failures reduces and the goal to outperforming others enlarges. Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the literatures on achievement orientation, expertise, and employee voice by providing an understanding of the influence of expertise and performance orientation on the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. As such, we extend previous research on expertise by showing expertise as an important source of influence on the attitude of leaders towards employee voice. Moreover, a contribution can be given to the literature on employee voice, since this research shows that leaders‟ attitude to employee voice can be positively influenced by a high level of expertise of the employee. This contribution to the literature on employee voice can be expanded by the effect of performance orientation and expertise of the employee on leaders‟ attitude to employee voice.
Practical implications
a higher level of expertise of employees results in a more positive attitude to employee
voiceamongst leaders, organizations can benefits this. When organizations use employees with a high level of expertise to voice ideas to the leader, the possibility that the leaders listens to the voiced ideas and implements them will be increased.
Strengths, Limitations and Future Research
The main strength of the study lies in the measurement of the dependent variable, leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. The leaders‟ attitude to employee voice was rated for every leader by their own employees. Thesedata were collected by multiple sources, which means extracting data from two or more sources. This means that not all the data in this survey was collected from self-reports. A possible problem with self-report measures is their potential susceptibility to social desirability responses (Arnold & Feldman, 1981), that is, the extent to which a person is likely to describe the self in favorable light and socially desirable terms (Lee, 1982). The use of multi-source data reduces the possibility for social desirable responses.
orientations (performance versus mastery) are crossed with the dimensions approach versus avoidance. This study focuses only on the approach orientations and does not take the avoidance approaches into account. This might be a limitation, since research showed the influence of the achievement orientation on how people define, experience and respond to achievement
situations, including the approach and avoidance orientations (Elliot, 2005).Future research should also take the avoidance orientations in account, to examine the influence of this avoidance orientation on the attitudes of the mastery and performance oriented leaders to
employee voice.Thirdly, Burris (2007) found that managerial reactions to employees speaking up depend on the type of voice displayed. This finding may implicate that besides the achievement orientation of leaders, there are more influences on the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice.It might be that these different voice types will also emerge in response to leaders‟ attitude to employee voice. Due to the influence of this variable, possibly no significant result was found for the main effects. Future research may take these two types of voice Burris defines,
questionnaire could not be filled out anonymously. Due to this, respondents may be withheld by answering the questions, since personal data was required for analysis. Employees and leaders might felt insecure about the sharing of their data publicly, despite the fact that they were told that the data would be used anonymously. Due to the sensitivity of the provided information, it is likely that to a certain extent, the data was affected by social desirability bias. In order to
overcome such bias, for future research, a social desirability scale can be included in the questionnaire to control for the social desirability of the provided answers (e.g. the Marlowe-Crown Scale; Reynolds, 1982).
Conclusion
Studies on management repeatedly emphasize the importance of employee voice within organizations. Whereas earlier research mainly focused on the leaders‟ influences on voicing behavior of employees, the contribution of this paper lies in the responses of leaders on employee voice. The core of this study is framed around the hypothesis that leaders‟ achievement orientation relates to leaders‟ attitude to employee voice and that expertise moderates this relationship. The findings show that expertise has influence on the leaders‟ attitude to employee voice and that performance orientated leaders are more positive to employee voice when there is a high level of expertise.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1981). Social Desirability Response Bias in Self-Report Choice Situations. Academy Of Management Journal, 24(2), 377-385. doi:10.2307/255848 Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. 1998. Out on a limb: The role of
context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 23–57.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. J. (2002). Goal Orientation and Ability: Interactive on Self-
Efficacy, Performance, and Knowledge. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 497-505. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.873.3.497
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: managerial response to employee voice. Academy Of Management Journal, 55(4), 851-875. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0562 Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E.,&Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research:
A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67,26–48.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: is the door really open? Academy Of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884. doi: 10.5465/AMJ. 2007. 26279183
Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L. & Pierce, J.L. (1989) The development of an attitude toward change instrument. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Eagly, A. H. (1978). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York:
Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goal. Educational Psychologist, 34: 169–189.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 _ 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80: 501–514.
Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K. &Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 x 2 achievement goal model. Journal of education psychology, vol. 103, No. 3, 632–648
George D. and Mallery P. (2003), SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, Allyn& Bacon, Boston.
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
Mick, D.G. (1996), “Are Studies of Dark Side Variables Confounded by Socially Desirable Responding? The Case of Materialism,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (September), 106–119.
Morrison, E. W. & Milliken, F. J. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a plurastic world. Academy of management review, 25: 706-725.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91,328–346.
Pickens, J. 2005, Attitudes and Perceptions, Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, 44 Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne
social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., &Crant, J. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845-874.
Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E., & Dutton, J.E. 1981. Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 501-524. SwasyJ.L. (1979) ,"Measuring the Bases of Social Power", in NA - Advances in Consumer
Research Volume 06, eds. William L. Wilkie, Ann Abor, MI :Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 340-346.
Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. Maehr& P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 99-141). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Van Dyne, L., &LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy Of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119. doi:10.2307/256902.
Vliet, C. &Hellgren, J. 2002, The Modern Working Life: Its Impact on Employee Attitudes, Performance and Health, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 7
