THE AGE OF LEARNING:
HOW PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT CAN INFLUENCE
LEARNING BEHAVIOR IN EMPLOYEES
A Moderation and Mediation Analysis
University of Groningen
Master Thesis, MSc, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
July 15, 2019 ROELOF BREUKINK Studentnumber: 3274608 Tuinbouwstraat 105a 9717JE Groningen Tel.: +31(0)640822183 Email: r.d.h.breukink@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Martin Pit, MSc Second Assessor: Prof. Dr. H.B.M Molleman
Acknowledgement: Support and helpful comments on earlier drafts were provided by my supervisor Martin Pit. I thank my supervisors for their guidance, and my family and friends for their
ABSTRACT
In today’s dynamic business environment, it is important for employees to learn, and for organizations to know what stimulates such learning behavior. The current paper argues for perceived organizational support to affect learning goal orientation in employees. Even though scholars have examined the beneficial effects of perceived organizational support in relative depth, this paper extend the body of literature by adding self-efficacy and organizational identification to the mix. The hypothesis were tested in Dutch companies who indicated a preference for learning environments. Through a sample of 116 employees (50 females) we were able to test our hypotheses. The results showed that perceived support does not lead to learning orientation, nor did self-efficacy serve as a mediator for perceived support and learning goal orientation. Also organizational identification did not moderate the relationship of support and learning. Significant evidence was found regarding perceived organizational support and self-efficacy.
Keywords: perceived organizational support, learning goal orientation, self-efficacy, organizational
INTRODUCTION
Time cools, time clarifies. No mood can be maintained quite unaltered through the course of hours. Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain, 1924.
Organizational learning has become increasingly important in today’s business environment. In order to survive the complex and unpredictable dynamics of modern markets, organizations need the skills to constantly detect, process and act upon new information (Bennet & Bennet, 2007). As a result of this trend, the demand for knowledge workers, those who create, develop and apply knowledge for their job and ‘think for a living’, has steadily increased (Florida, 2005). In 2012, McKinsey & Company estimated that there are currently 230 million knowledge workers in the world stating: ‘knowledge work occupations grow by 1.9 million per years, whereas other categories grow by approximately 100.000 per year’ (Zumbrun, 2016). Appendix A in the Appendix section plots this trend graphically.
In response to this ongoing movement, organizations are required to continually improve upon their human capital. The knowledge and skills of organizational members must consistently be
developed and maintained for organizations to remain competitive advantageous (Campbell & Coff, 2012). Since knowledge workers are increasingly forming the backbone of modern organizations, scholars and practitioners should specifically focus on what constitutes the development and motivation of learning in individuals. More specifically, it is important to examine how and why individuals differ in learning motivation, and what role organizations could play in stimulating these motivations. Indeed, in their pursuit of developing human capital and the pressure of remaining competitive, organizations are forced to pay increased attention to the development and maintenance of knowledge in their departments, teams and employees (O’Keeffe, 2002; Calantone, Cavusgil & Zhao, 2002), which has long been subject to scholarly and practical interest (Senge, 1990; Putnik, 2009; Eickmann, 2011; Smith & Sharicz, 2011).
& Legget, 1988; VandeWalle, 2003). In an effort to explain motivational differences shown by individuals, substantive research has been conducted on the construct of goal orientation, which refers to the differences of goals that individuals strive for and to what extent they find the goals motivating in a given context (VandeWalle, Nerstad & Dysvik, 2019; Dweck, 1986). For instance, scholars have theorized that individuals possessing a learning goal orientation seek challenging tasks, set higher goals, show more commitment to those goals, and desire gaining new knowledge (Dweck & Legget, 1988). Therefore, employees possessing a learning goal orientation is beneficial for organizations that focus on the development of creating a learning-based environment (Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014).
examining the potential effects of organizational support. Specifically, we argue that organizational practices, and the employee’s perception of these practices, help explaining the adoption of a learning goal orientation. Therefore, this study adds to theory in three ways, namely; a) state learning goal orientation has not been examined as an outcome of organizational support b) it complements previous state-based research on goal orientation and c) provides alternative explanations by which positive goal orientations can be achieved.
Following the conceptualization of learning goal orientation as a state-like construct, this paper considers organizational support as a possible situation cue, and we posit that it may have predictive power on state learning goal orientation. We argue that when organizations focus on developing a learning climate, their employee support contains elements of that desire, which is then perceived and adopted by employees. More specifically, we argue that the norm of reciprocation plays a crucial role in the emergence of state learning goal orientation. The norm of reciprocation states that individuals return benefits when provided with benefits, allowing for a quality relationship to become salient (Whatley, Rhodes, Smith & Webster, 1999). Research shows that reciprocation is a powerful tool for the motivation and regulation of behavior in organizations (Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau, 1994), and this study argues that state-induced learning goal orientation is a consequence of perceived organizational support by means of reciprocation.
Finally, the adoption of learning goal orientation has ties with the level of an individual’s self-efficacy (Schunk, 1990), due to ability and amount of control that an individual believes to have over situations. For instance, Locke and Latham (2002) showcased that a lack of belief in successful task engagement would prevent an individual to commit to achieving goals, including learning goals, thus nullifying its motivation to adopt a learning goal orientation, regardless of context. However,
preferred learning orientations may be dependent on an employee’s characteristics and feelings toward the organization, in the form of organizational identification. In addition to examining the effects of perceived organization support and the state-induced properties of learning goal orientation, this study includes organizational identification to have explanatory value. Identification, the feeling of oneness and belonging with an organization and part of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), has been attributed to positive employee outcomes such as commitment and increased effort (Smids, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001). If an employee is a high recipient of perceiving organizational support, he may be more likely to adopt learning goal behavior if he is also highly identified. Since this effect is yet to be examined in this particular setting, we study the impact of this effect on the perceived organizational support and learning goal orientation relationship.
. Our research questions are therefore:
• RQ1: What impact does perceived organizational support have on the adoption of
learning goal orientation?
• RQ2: To what extent can self-efficacy support the relationship between perceived
organizational support and learning goal orientation?
• RQ3: To what extent does organizational identification influence the relationship
between perceived organizational support and learning goal orientation?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
An employee’s motivation for learning and improving knowledge has become imperative for individuals to handle the dynamics of modern work-life, and for organizations to sustain competitive advantage through human capital (Hatch & Dyer, 2004; Campbell, Coff, Kryscynski, 2012). As a result, significant research has been devoted to the role of individual learning motivation (e.g. Deci & Ryan, 1985; Klonoski, 2011). In an attempt to explain motivational differences between individuals, scholars have paid increased attention to the construct of goal orientation, which refers to an
individual’s goal preference when faced with development settings (Dweck, 1986). The concept is helpful in explaining why individuals strive for different goals and the degree to which they find those goals motivating. Dweck (1986) argued for two broad orientation classes, namely performance goal orientation, in which individuals ‘wish to demonstrate their competences to gain favorable or avoid unfavorable judgments’, and learning goal orientation – used interchangeably with mastery goal orientation –, defined as ‘the way in which individuals seek to increase their competence, set higher
goals, and aim to understand or to master something new’ (Dweck & Legget, 1988). A learning goal
orientation is interesting for organizations that emphasize learning, as research shows that individuals possessing it belief that effort and challenge are the most important determinant of performance (e.g. Farr, Hoffman & Ringenbach, 1993). Unlike performance oriented individuals, who desire the demonstration of their competence, learning orientated individuals focus on skill development and acquiring new knowledge (Van Yperen & Duda, 1999; VandeWalle, Cron & Slocum, 2001).
Trait versus state
inherently different from its trait goal counterpart precisely due to its argued receptivity to contextual influence (Dweck & Legget, 1988; Dragoni, 2005). Relevant literature has devoted much attention to the trait approach, which posits that certain traits are expressed by individuals only when trait-relevant situational cues present themselves (Tett & Burnett, 2003). However, other theorists of organizational psychology have criticized this exclusive consideration of traits on the learning goal orientation construct, and argued for the importance of environmental cues to also be of influence on motivation and learning behavior in employees (Fleeson, Noftle, 2009; Steele-Johnson, Heintz & Miller, 2008). Given this imbalance in goal orientation literature, the potential beneficial effects of situationally induced goal orientation remain under examined (Steele-Johnson, Heintz & Miller, 2008). In this paper therefore, we consider learning goal orientation as a situationally-induced state. More
specifically, we argue that the perception of an organizational supportiveness may have increasing or decreasing effects on the adoption of a learning goal orientation.
The importance of perceived organizational support
For instance, an organization may stimulate its employees to develop and apply new skills (Ford et al., 1992), or allocate free time for professional development (Noe & Wilk, 1993). Moreover, by giving constructive feedback for improvement, or by allowing experimentation on new work methods, employees recognize a supportive, learning-focused climate that expects and values development (Hackman, 1992; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). When individuals perceive such a climate, a psychological
climate for learning becomes salient, through which individuals think their work is challenging
because of organizational encouragement for developmental tasks (McCauley, 2001; Ames, 1992), Moreover, they view colleagues as sources of social support and feedback and gain increasing satisfaction from personal development. Accordingly, supportive relationships, perceived challenge and effort-based rewards essentially hint and induce a state learning goal orientation (Papaioannou, Marsh & Theordorakis, 2004; Dragoni, 2005). In light of the empirical evidence, we define perceived
organizational support (POS) as the perception by employee’s that the organization is providing
support and designs learning programs and opportunities, which aids employees in their learning goal orientation.
Based on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), norm of reciprocity (Whatley, Rhoades, Smith & Webster, 1999) and state-induced learning goal orientation (Steele-Johnson, Heitnz & Miller, 2008), we theorize that perceived organizational support, through organizational cues of learning, stimulates employees in adopting a learning goal orientation. When such cues are not available or incorrectly perceived, an imbalance emerges in terms of reciprocation (Organ, 1988), crippling the intended effect of learning support. For instance, if the employee is not supported or perceives not to be supported, his1 feelings of reciprocating by adopting learning behavior lessens. As such, the employee is less likely to increase performance because the rewards can be perceived as ambiguous and unattainable (Chandola, Starke & Godin, 2004). In addition, low perceived support is associated with decreased motivation (Venkatachalam, 1995), increased withdrawal behavior and increased felt strain (Robblee, 1998), crippling the organization’s supportive practices on inducing learning behaviors.
However, when the employee shows the desired learning behavior and is subsequently rewarded for it, the reciprocity balance is restored. Since the employee then knows learning behavior is what is
expected of him, he is more likely to adopt the learning goal orientation.
In other words: when organizations emphasize on the development of a learning environment, their support indicates a preference for learning behavior, and subsequently steers employees towards the adoption of learning behavior. The extent to which employees perceive this intention and
reciprocate by the adoption of a learning goal orientation is what guides the present study.
H1: Perceived organizational support is positively associated with learning goal orientation.
The mediating effect of self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as an ‘individual’s belief in their ability to achieve goals and how well on can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations’ (Bandura, 1997).
(Stumph, Brief & Hartman, 1987), increased adaptability (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007) and information processing skills (Hill, Smith & Mann, 1987).
Perceived organizational support and self-efficacy
Perceived organizational support has been argued to play an important role in fostering higher employee performance (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011), and a number of studies have been performed to empirically show which cognitive outcomes could be attributed to POS (Kinnunen, Feldt & Makikangas, 2008). For instance, Eisenberger & Stinglhamber (2011) argued that POS would increase an employee’s task and job motivation by 1) fulfilling socioemotional needs such as self-esteem and the need for approval 2) by creating the expectation that performance will be reciprocated in the form of rewards and, most importantly, 3) through the reinforcement of self-efficacy. According to Bandura (2000) and Usher and Pajares (2008), four external sources contribute to an individual’s sense of self-efficacy namely: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion and psychological state. POS is presumed to enhance an employee’s self-efficacy by affecting several of these sources (Ceasans & Stinglhamber, 2014), two of which we specifically consider for this study.
performance evaluation, assistance and appreciation of effort are associated with feelings of optimism, positive mood and belonging. In addition, successful mastery experiences followed by organizational appraisal increase efficacy which in turn enhances performance, further strengthening self-efficacy beliefs (Pintrich, 2000).
POS is furthermore related to the degree to which employees perceive the organization to fulfill their socioemotional needs (Eisenberger et al., 1986). When socioemotional support is low, employees develop higher levels of strain, which is negatively associated with self-efficacy (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). Conversely, higher felt socioemotional support increase an individual’s morale, esteem and affiliation, increasing levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1991; Steven & Gist, 1997; Van Woerkom, Bakker & Nishi, 2016). Complementing the relationship between POS and self-efficacy, Jiang, Song, Lee and Bong (2014) found that learning environments and the way this environment is perceived by individuals have been found to influence self-efficacy feelings. Based on the empirical evidence described here, we are able to construct our second hypothesis. The higher the perception of organizational learning support and acknowledgment, the greater their self-efficacy levels within individuals. In other words:
H2: Perceived organizational support is positively associated with self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy and learning goal orientation
self-efficacy is associated with optimism and the ability to consider alternative means of goal
attainment (Kavanagh & Bower, 1985). Furthermore, inherent to self-efficacy is motivation. Whereas self-efficacy is concerned with the beliefs of ability, motivation is related the desire to achieve (Mayer, 2010). Even though self-efficacy and motivation are different constructs, they often complement the other (Usher & Pajares, 2008). Through the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989), we argue that self-efficacy is an important determinant for adopting learning goal orientation. Indeed, the theory states that effective learning happens when the individual is confident and motivated to engage in dynamic interactions with others, the environment and behavior (LaMorte, 2016), again signaling the ability as a precursor to learning goal adoption. Lastly, high self-efficacy is related to deeper interest in tasks and the desirability for capability expansion (Usher & Pajares, 2008), further complementing the relationship with learning goal orientation. Supported by the social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989), an individual’s level of self-efficacy is in part related to the goals they choose to pursue (Caraway, Tucker, Reinke & Hall, 2003).
In this paper we argue that self-efficacy has an important relation to learning goal orientation in several ways. The first being that the lack of belief in task accomplishment will prevent the individual from commitment to the goal or even setting the goal in the first place (Locke & Latham, 2002). Secondly, when individuals set their goals, the difficulty of that particular goal varies as a function of self-efficacy. Indeed, higher scoring self-efficacy individuals are more likely to choose difficult goals as part of their confidence in success, whereas individuals low in self-efficacy set easier attainable goals (VanDeWalle, Cron & Slocum, 2001), which in turn hints to the relation between self-efficacy and learning goal orientation. For instance, a self-efficacious individual who is originally not learning goal oriented, may perceive the desired behavioral change as challenging, and commit himself with more rigor to showcase such behavior. In line with that reasoning, people scoring higher on self-efficacy have larger beliefs in their ability may be more inclined to adopt learning goal orientation through their confidence and beliefs of ability, which they then showcase by increasing their competence and their willingness to master new tasks.
In light of the previous empirical literature regarding our research interest, we combine all the previously discussed hypotheses and form the first part of our conceptual model, namely that
perceived organizational support influences the ability to adopt a learning goal orientation. Furthermore, perceived organizational support and organizational context is able to externally stimulate the perception of employees about their abilities, increasing their self-efficacy levels, and therefore becoming more likely to adopt a learning goal orientation.. In summary, through social cognitive theory by Bandura (1989), adaptive learning behavior is based on reciprocal determinism, reinforcement through external encouragement and self-efficacy, the confidence of an individual in ability to perform behavior (LaMorte, 2016).
H4: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between perceived organizational support and learning goal orientation
Organizational identification as moderator
Organizational identification (OI) refers to the degree to which organizational members identify with their firm, or ‘the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization’ (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam, Jetten, Jacobs & O’Brien, 2004).The concept originates from the social identity theories (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) which describes a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership. Further research done by Mael and Ashforth (1992) introduced social identification to this argument, suggesting that individuals feel ‘socially intertwined’ with the fate of a particular group they are in. In organizations, such social classifications occur when a member ‘ascribes characteristics that are typical of these organizations to themselves’ (Van
1989; Meyer, Becker & Van Dick, 2006). Employees who are highly identified with their organization may be more accepting of the organization’s call for showing certain behavior, due to their feelings of oneness and their general concern for organizational welfare (Riketta, 2005). Conversely, lesser identified individuals do not see the organization as part of their social groupings (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and are less motivated to increase effort on its behalf despite supportive learning cues (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Therefore, they may not feel the necessity of adopting a learning goal orientation In line with that reasoning, we expect that low identified members are not motivated to adapt their behaviors despite organizational cues through support.
Organizational support is an important contextual factor that conveys expectation for behavior and behavioral outcome (James, Hartman, Stebbins & Jones, 1977). In context of high stimulus for learning, those who perceive higher organizational support are more likely to demonstrate creative and innovative behavior, as demonstrated by previous research (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). However, we will argue that the strength of this relationship depends on the degree to which an employee feels identified with the organization.
H5: Perceived organizational support and organizational identification interact to influence learning goal orientation such that:
- Perceived organizational support is associated with increased learning goal orientation when organizational identification is high.
METHODS Sample and procedure
The gathering of research data was done through contacting four large and some smaller companies spread throughout The Netherlands. In line with our research interest, we searched for companies who focused on - or indicated a transition towards - a learning environment in their
companies. To mitigate common source bias
(
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Nathan & Podsakoff, 2003)
, we aimed to incorporate companies operating in different branches, for instance; a bike production company, an insurance company and a starch intermediate producer. In order to measure thehypotheses on a sound basis, the research required participants who worked at least 0.2 FTE. This was done mainly to ensure that the participants had indeed a reason to learn and were reasonably assumed to feel connected to the organization (for instance; Clinebell & Clinebell, 2007). For the variables of interest - and control variables - we constructed a survey in which all variables were asked on a Likert 5 point scale, ranging from ‘totally agree’ to ‘totally disagree’. The constructs, questions and their corresponding reliability can be found on the next page. In order to find participants, we used our network of companies known to us, or who would be familiar/interested in our objectives. HR directors were contacted and, once they approved, were sent an anonymous Qualtrics survey link for them to forward to their company’s employees. The survey was initially in English, but considering that all companies were Dutch we translated the survey using a back-to-back translation procedure (Brislin, 1970). This was done by translating the survey to Dutch, and then ask participants to then translate it back to its original language. In order to capture the population of interest as closely as possible, the translation was done by a starter (27 y/old), a freelancer (39 y/old) and a pensioner (63 y/old). The translations revealed an accurate understanding of the core of the questions. All
participation on the survey was anonymous, confidential and were kept to the researcher. The gathered data was destroyed after completion of the analysis.
average age was 36.76 years old (SD = 11.51, min = 21, max = 64) and tenure is reported with a mean of 7.72 years (SD = 9.14, min = .00, max = 30), revealing a skewness in the data (median = 1 year).
Measures
The measures for this study are the three variables of interest, namely Self-efficacy (SE), Learning Goal-Orientation (GO) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). Control variables namely age, gender and tenure are taken into consideration for analysis. Below, we present the variables of interest, their scales and their internal reliability along with example questions. Generally, the response rate is observed to be low when the survey comes from a relative unknown source (Kanuk & Berenson, 1975). To decrease the time it requires to finish the survey - and thus increase the response rate - we opted to use smaller versions of the scales for some of the variables. In other words: we used the same scales but their smaller counterparts.
Self-efficacy. Ten items will be used to measure self-reported self-efficacy (SE) which, as
indicated, will be answerable on a five-point Likert scale. This research will use the Generalized Self-Efficacy scale by Schwarzer & Jerusalem (1995). The scale has been validated and our reliability test showed the scale to have an alpha of .71. Example questions include ‘It is easy for me to stick to my
aims and accomplish my goals’ and ‘I can usually handle whatever comes my way’.
Learning Goal-Orientation. For the measurement of this construct, a six item scale is used. In
Vandewalle’s (1997) ‘work domain goal orientation instrument’, it was revealed that the internal consistency for learning goal-orientation is sufficient for measurement purposes (α = .75). Again, participants are asked to indicate their level of agreement on the Likert 5 point scale. Questions such as ‘I prefer to work in situations that require a high level of ability and talent’ and ‘I often read
materials related to my work to improve my ability’ are part of the scale.
Questions such as ‘the organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.’ and The
organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me’ (R) will be present in the questionnaire. Organizational Identification. The organizational identification scale we used for this paper
stemmed from a large, 17 item long, five-point Likert scale. We used the shorter version of the Organizational Identification Questionnaire (OIQ) that constitutes 8 items (Gautam, Van Dick & Wagner, 2004; Cheney, 1983), also using a Likert scale from 1 – 5. The scale we used appeared reliable for measuring, as it holds an alpha of .79. Questions such as ‘The organization’s successes are
my successes’ were part of the survey.
Control variables. In this research, we will control for age, tenure, and gender. Tenure has
been shown to be predictors of POS (Eisenberger, 1986), and will therefore be incorporated in the survey. Age will be measured in years, similar to tenure.
Data analysis
RESULTS
The next section will show the results of the statistical analysis performed in order to test the hypotheses that were constructed. This chapter compromises the outcomes of the research we performed, in which our aim is to present our findings as concise and transparent as possible. We begin with an overview of the found correlations (see Appendix C). After that, we discuss the hypotheses that relate to our dependent variable: learning goal orientation. These are H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5. Finally, the complete model will be tested and then discussed in the next chapter. Let us commence with descriptive statistics and correlations.
Preliminary analysis
The analysis shown in the correlation matrix (refer to Appendix C) yields the means, standard deviations and correlations for the variables we were interested in. As discussed in the previous section, we incorporated three control variables, namely age, gender and tenure respectively. First, the average age was 36, with a fairly large standard deviation (M = 36.57, SD = 10.90). Gender was approximately evenly distributed (M = 0.59). Tenure shows a very flat distribution, with the standard deviation (SD = 9.09) larger than the mean (M = 7.63). Top to bottom, we observe a negative weak correlation between gender and age (r = -.207, p < .05), a strong correlation between age and tenure (r = .725 p < .01). We proceed to the end of the age column and observe a strong correlation between age and organizational identification (r = .249, p < .01) Again, we discuss the observations in more detail in the following section. Continuing, we note two correlations for perceived support, namely for self-efficacy (r = .222, p < 0.5) and for organizational identification (r = .645, p < 0.1). Finally, the data again presents two correlations, this time for learning goal orientation: strongly correlates with self-efficacy (r = .428, p < .01) and moderately for organizational identification (r = .198, p < 0.5).
Hypothesis testing – Mediation
The first hypothesis proposed a positive relationship between perceived organizational support and learning goal orientation. However, the results of the analysis yielded a non-significant result (B= 0.06, SE = 0.07, p >.10). Accordingly, H1 is rejected. The second hypothesis argued for a positive relationship between perceived organizational support and self-efficacy. For this relationship, the results showed that a significant relationship existed (B=0.15, SE=0.06, p<0.05). We therefore do not reject H2. With regards to the third hypothesis, we proposed another positive relationship. This time between self-efficacy and learning goal orientation. The results of the hierarchical linear regression yielded a significant positive relationship (B=0.43, SE=0.07, p<0.01). Because this implies significant evidence for a relationship, H3 is supported. Finally, for the fourth hypothesis, we incorporated both perceived organizational support and self-efficacy to gauge if such a positive relationship existed. However, the analysis reported otherwise (B=-0.01, SE=0.06, p>0.10), and we must therefore reject H4.
To end this part of the analysis, we used Sobel’s test (Sobel, 1982; Soper, 2007) to see if the indirect effect – that is, including the mediator self-efficacy – showed a significant effect. The
outcome of the test revealed a significant statistic (Z=2.72, p(two-tailed)<0.01). However, the assumptions that the Sobel test makes is that the estimates of path a (H2) and path b (H3) are independent. It does not hold for other tests in relation to regression. Because of this, the test is generally seen to have low power (MacKinnon, Warsi & Dwyer, 1995). Furthermore, the outcome of the Sobel test indicates a significance level of p<0.01, which would normally classify as evidence for mediation. However, conform the causal steps approach by Baron and Kenny (1986), we observe no direct effect between perceived organizational support and learning goal orientation and can therefore not conclude there is a mediation effect.
Hypothesis testing – Moderation
product of both the moderator and the independent variable to jointly regress them with learning goal orientation.
The second model we used incorporated the moderator. However, the effects of organizational identification on learning goal orientation were insignificant (B=0.06, SE=0.40, p>0.10).
Hypothesis testing – Moderation and mediation
DISCUSSION
Summary
Continuous learning has become ever more crucial for organizations, as it is a source of sustained advantage in the modern business era (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997; Sessa & London, 2015). However, what motivates individuals in organizations to engage in learning is not unilateral; the mechanisms of employee learning motivation are complex (Chadwick & Raver, 2012), often leaving organizations puzzled in how to effectively stimulate their employees. How can organizations influence the adoption of learning goal orientation in their employees? And to what extent do self-efficacy and organizational identification affect this relationship? The current study was aimed to provide answers to these
questions.
By using a sample of 116 employees working in companies throughout the Netherlands, we were able to measure and analyse our hypotheses. For correct measurement of our hypotheses, we searched for companies who indicated a preference for becoming or aspiring to be a learning organization. We argued that such intent trickled down into supportive structures and policies. In contrast to our expectations, this study found no significant relationship between perceived
organizational support and learning goal orientation (H1). With regards to the mediation variable, we found that perceived organizational support was significantly and positively related to self-efficacy (H2). In turn, self-efficacy proved to have a significant positive relationship to learning goal
orientation (H3). However, we were not able to conclude the mediation effect of self-efficacy between perceived organizational support and learning goal orientation (H4). Finally, additional analyses revealed that organizational identification did not moderate the relationship between perceived organizational support and learning goal orientation (H5).
Theoretical implications
examining the goal orientation through a situationally-based approach (VandeWalle, Nerstad & Dysvik, 2019). To our knowledge, it was the first study to specifically consider the effects of
perceived organizational support on the emergence of individual learning goal orientation. Secondly, we argued for the utility of self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) in the context of organizational support, showcasing evidence that self-efficacy was not a mediator on the adoption of a learning goal orientation. Thirdly, on the basis of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) we maintained organizational identification to have a moderating effect on the relationship between perceived organizational support and learning goal orientation. Here too, this study was not able to demonstrate such an effect. However, this study provides ample opportunity for future research to explore
alternative explanations. In this section, we will discuss our findings in further detail.
To start, an important factor to consider are the sources of evaluations regarding perceived organizational support. Due to the learning intention of the organizations, we asked employees about their perception of support regarding the organization. Indeed, the measurement did in fact ask the employee to indicate its feelings towards the organizations based on self-measurement. However, Wayne, Shore and Liden (1997) show that the evaluation of perceived organizational support may be erroneously attributed to the employee’s relationship with his immediate supervisor, also known as the leader-member exchange relationship (LMX). Since the supervisor is usually the distributor of
discretionary rewards to its subordinates, the employee’s evaluation of perceived organizational support may be largely influenced by the quality of LMX (Garg & Shar, 2014). In addition,
In another stream of thought, the concept of perceived organizational support may have been inadequate for the explanation of learning goal orientation Employees may, for instance, also be stimulated to change their orientation depending on their relationship with immediate peers, coined as prosocial behaviors (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). Prosocial, showing altruistic behaviors with regards to others, has been shown to have positive effects on behavior outcomes. The current literature on organizational behavior is indeed arguing for the effects of positive and nurturing work context that foster proactive behavior, which in turn may be attributed to higher levels of innovation (Seibert, Kraimer & Crant, 2001) and task performance (Fuller & Marler, 2009). Such prosocial context could also have effect on learning behavior of individuals (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009). For instance, Parker and Collins (2010) found that prosocial contexts accelerate employees’ achievement intentions and allow optimistic behavior to higher-quality productivity and challenging-seeking behavior. As
research shows, challenge-seeking behavior is a form of knowledge gaining (Lee & Kim, 2014) in that it actively seeks out inexperienced situations or difficult tasks so that learning inevitably follows. Following that line of reasoning, more ways of measuring learning behavior should be researched, and future research could potentially incorporate the concept of prosocial behavior as a distal measure of employee learning behavior.
instance, in situations where both orientations are emphasized, an individual may select their preferred goal because they feel most comfortable with it. As such, individuals scoring low on achievement desire may orientate to learning goals, and higher achievement desiring individuals choose performance orientation. In addition, the selected goal is domain-specific, in that individuals pick orientations based on their different outlook on situations (e.g. VandeWalle, Cron & Slocum, 2001) Thus, when the goals itself are externally assigned, a multiple goals approach would be beneficial. Not because the goals were simultaneously pursued, but because a difference in individuals allows for a different focus on goals based on personal preference and domain. This also complements DeGeest & Brown (2011) who agrees that trait and states are different, but they still interact. We conclude that the operationalization of the goal orientation construct may provide better results if taken simultaneously.
Finally, we evaluate the incorporation of our mediating and moderating variables; self-efficacy and organizational identification. Since self-efficacy did not mediate the link of perceived
(Bartels, 2006). Identification is measured in strength by the employee’s expectation that the effort of work is proportionate to organizational rewards which allows the employee to increase its motivation and more inclined to adopt behaviours required by the organization (Latham & Pinder, 2005). Due to the different perception of support – throughout different companies – and the interaction with
identification to adopt learning goal orientation, future research could aim to incorporate identification as an outcome to innovation, as proposed by Lipponen and Bardi (2008). The identification may play a larger role in suggestion-making when the perception of support is high. Indeed, both variables appear to complement the other (Edwards & Peccei, 2010), and future research may conjointly use the variables in predicting learning outcomes.
Concluding, this study employs a relatively broad dependent variable which is largely susceptible to other, unaccounted for, variables. Indeed, we incorporated the perception of support to account for the felt norm of reciprocation in the adoption of learning behavior. However, we could not isolate variables that were not related to organizational supportiveness, perhaps more related to individual relations with others. Even though perceived organizational support has been associated with innovation (Bammens, 2013), it may not be associated with preferred behavior adoption. Due to the many confounding variables that may be of influence, and many different approaches that can be utilized for the construct of goal orientation, subsequent research may be more resourceful in using multiple goal orientations for measurement, incorporating of more distinctive, as opposed to likened, organizational variables in the process.
Practical implications
As a result of our study, managers that wish for a emphasize on learning may be advised to create a climate of support, that underpins the desirability of learning behaviors. In the process, they may be advised to take into account the beneficial effects of self-efficacious employees, and to what extent their organizational practices and policies can have an impact on the level of their self-efficacy. Even though self-efficacy is strongly related to learning goal orientation, the adopting of such
adapt the organizational culture and their leadership in order to showcase the value and concern they have for their employees, which may stimulate them to reciprocate with desired behavior.
Limitations and future research
The present study is not without its limitations. Firstly, the design of the study has
methodological limitations through its use of a cross-sectional correlations method. The disadvantage of using such methods is that inferences of causality cannot be drawn, and that observed effects require further experimental research before any decisive conclusions can be made. In addition, the data was gathered in a single point in time, and future research is advised to incorporate longitudinal methods. In this way, the data gathered at multiple points stretched over a longer time period, and may improve the causal relationships .
Another drawback in this study is that the data collected was gathered from multiple
organizations, as opposed to one single organization. The effect of such data gathering is that there are many diverting variables that could affect the data, and that is was not possible to measure the
hypothesized effect on team or departmental level. For instance, individual goal orientation may be more salient on team or group level, and more apparent in departments that require knowledge such as R&D or innovating-driving companies that rely on constant innovative products or services.
Moreover, the present study strongly relies on self-reported measures. Future research could pay attention to this problem by incorporating more objective measures such as existing company data. With regards of perceived support, many variables may be of influence in the perception of
organizational support. Future research should be wary of using the construct in favor of other measures, or should be able to successfully isolate variables that contaminate the measurement.
This study focuses exclusively on learning goal orientation, rendering the research fairly narrow. Future research on state goal orientation may use deeper layers of the construct, such as learning-approach and learning-avoid or the multiple goal approach (Elliot, 1999). Also, even though our method of gathering responses yielded a relatively representable sample of the working
a cross-border data gathering method. Regarding nationalities, no effect of culture could therefore be taken into consideration. The effects of culture (Hofstede, 2011) may prove to have explanatory power. Nations such as Germany and France have different working cultures than Norwegian and Dutch companies for example, which may have an effect on how organizational support is perceived by employees. Finally, because state learning goal orientation is influenced by time and context, different determinants and consequences may be related to the outcomes, which in turn may shape attributions of causality and motivational mechanisms.
Conclusion
In today’s business climate, creating and developing employee knowledge is of crucial importance for organizational success. Extensive research is required before significant conclusions can be drawn on how the perception of organizational support can be attributed to desired work outcomes and behaviors, such as the motivation to learn. Although perceptions are based on a variety of individual differences, understanding how they emerge and how they can be altered are important for advancing our understanding of what motivates employees. By continuing our search in studying the mechanisms behind the prevalence of certain behavior, researchers should keep pursuing new avenues to further their own knowledge on the concept. As it stands, organizations are encouraged not to underestimate the value of their support on employee outcomes. After all, no mood can be
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. The Academy Of Management
Review, 14(1), 20. doi: 10.2307/258189
Ashforth, B., Harrison, S., & Corley, K. (2008). Identification in Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions. Journal Of Management, 34(3), 325-374. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316059 Bammens, Y. (2013). Employees as a Source of Innovation: The Role of Perceived Organizational Support in
Family Firms. Academy Of Management Proceedings, 2013(1), 10400. doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2013.29 Bandura, A. (1997). Editorial. American Journal Of Health Promotion, 12(1), 8-10. doi:
10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.8
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 92-113. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90028-2
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology,
51(6), 1173-1182. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bartels, J. (2006). Organizational identification and communication: Employees' evaluations of internal
communication and its effect on identification at different organizational levels. Enschede:
Universiteit Twente.
Bell, B., & Kozlowski, W. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy,
performance, and knowledge. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 497-505. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.497
Bennet, A. and Bennet, D. (2007). From stories to strategy: putting organizational learning to work. VINE, 37(4), pp.404-409.
Brislin, R. (1970). The Effect of Separation between Test and Comparison Objects on Size Constancy at Various Age-Levels. The American Journal Of Psychology, 83(3), 372. doi: 10.2307/1420413 Button, S., Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1996). Goal Orientation in Organizational Research: A Conceptual and
Caesens, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2018). Perceived Organizational Support: A critical analysis of self-efficacy.
Journal Of Business And Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s10869-018-9596-z
Calantone, R., Cavusgil, S. and Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), pp.515-524.
Campbell, B., Coff, R. and Kryscynski, D. (2012). Rethinking Sustained Competitive Advantage from Human Capital. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), pp.376-395.
Caraway, K., Tucker, C., Reinke, W., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high school students. Psychology In The Schools, 40(4), 417-427. doi: 10.1002/pits.10092
Chatman, J., & O'Reilly, C. (1989). Building organizational commitment: A multifirm study. Journal Of
Occupational Psychology, 63(3), 245-261. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00525.x
Clinebell, S., & Clinebell, J. (2007). The Tension in Business Education Between Academic Rigor and Real-World Relevance: The Role of Executive Professors. Academy Of Management Learning &
Education, 7(1), 99-107. doi: 10.5465/amle.2008.31413867
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality.
Journal Of Research In Personality, 19(2), 109-134. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
DeGeest, D., & Brown, K. (2011). The role of goal orientation in leadership development. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 22(2), 157-175. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20072
DeShon, R., & Gillespie, J. (2005). A Motivated Action Theory Account of Goal Orientation. Journal Of
Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1096-1127. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1096
Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the Emergence of State Goal Orientation in Organizational Work Groups: The Role of Leadership and Multilevel Climate Perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), pp.1084-1095.
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.41.10.1040
Edwards, M., & Peccei, R. (2010). Perceived Organizational Support, Organizational Identification, and Employee Outcomes. Journal Of Personnel Psychology, 9(1), 17-26. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000007
Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist,
34(3), 169-189.
Elliott, E. and Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54(1), pp.5-12.
Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. (2009). In favor of the synthetic resolution to the person–situation debate. Journal
Of Research In Personality, 43(2), 150-154. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.008
Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identification and organizational
commitment: Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(3), 301-315.
Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., & Elliot, A. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638-645. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.94.3.638 Haslam, S., Jetten, J., O'Brien, A., & Jacobs, E. (2004). Social identity, social influence and reactions to
potentially stressful tasks: support for the self-categorization model of stress. Stress And Health, 20(1), 3-9. doi: 10.1002/smi.995
Hatch, N., & Dyer, J. (2004). Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage.
Strategic Management Journal, 25(12), 1155-1178. doi: 10.1002/smj.421
Hofmann, D., & Strickland, O. (1995). Task Performance and Satisfaction: Evidence for a Task- By Ego-Orientation Interaction1. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 25(6), 495-511. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01764.x
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings In
Psychology And Culture, 2(1). doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1014
James, L., Hartman, A., Stebbins, M., & Jones, A. (1977). Relationships Between Psychological Climate And A Vie Model For Work Motivation. Personnel Psychology, 30(2), 229-254. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb02091.x
Jiang, Y., Song, J., Lee, M., & Bong, M. (2013). Self-efficacy and achievement goals as motivational links between perceived contexts and achievement. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 92-117. doi:
10.1080/01443410.2013.863831
Kanuk, L., & Berenson, C. (1975). Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review. Journal Of
Marketing Research, 12(4), 440. doi: 10.2307/3151093
Kavanagh, D., & Bower, G. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy And Research, 9(5), 507-525. doi: 10.1007/bf01173005
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Mäkikangas, A. (2008). Testing the effort-reward imbalance model among Finnish managers: The role of perceived organizational support. Journal Of Occupational Health Psychology,
13(2), 114-127. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.114
Klonoski, R. (2011). Work Motivation, Culture, And Economic Development: Is Work Motivation Shaped By Its Socio-Economic Context?. International Journal Of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS),
15(4), 91. doi: 10.19030/ijmis.v15i4.5805
Knippenberg, D., & Schie, E. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal Of
Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 73(2), 137-147. doi: 10.1348/096317900166949
Kozlowski, S., & Farr, J. (1988). An Integrative Model of Updating and Performance. Human Performance,
1(1), 5-29. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup0101_1
Kreiner, G., & Ashforth, B. (2003). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification.
Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1-27. doi: 10.1002/job.234
LaMorte, W. W. (2016). The social cognitive theory. Boston University School of Public Health. Retrieved from
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories5.html
Latham, G., & Pinder, C. (2005). Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century. Annual Review Of Psychology, 56(1), 485-516. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105
Lipponen, J., Bardi, A., & Haapamäki, J. (2008). The interaction between values and organizational
identification in predicting suggestion-making at work. Journal Of Occupational And Organizational
Psychology, 81(2), 241-248. doi: 10.1348/096317907x216658
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.57.9.705
Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.). (2009). Oxford library of psychology. Oxford handbook of positive
psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2009). The “point” of positive organizational behavior. Journal Of Organizational
Behavior, 30(2), 291-307. doi: 10.1002/job.589
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. (2007). Emerging Positive Organizational Behavior. Journal Of Management,
MacKinnon, D., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. (1995). A Simulation Study of Mediated Effect Measures.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 41-62. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_3
Maddux, J. (1995). Yes, People Can Change, But Can Psychotherapists?. Contemporary Psychology: A
Journal Of Reviews, 40(11), 1047-1048. doi: 10.1037/004099
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123. doi:
10.1002/job.4030130202
Mangos, P. and Steele-Johnson, D. (2001). The Role of Subjective Task Complexity in Goal Orientation, Self-Efficacy, and Performance Relations. Human Performance, 14(2), pp.169-185.
Maurer, T., & Tarulli, B. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal Of Applied
Psychology, 79(1), 3-14. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.79.1.3
Mayer, R. (2010). Understanding human cognition in the real world. Journal Of Scientific Endeavours, 55(47). doi: 10.1037/a0021534
McCauley, R. (2001). Explanatory Pluralism and Heuristic Identity Theory. Theory & Psychology, 11(6), 736-760. doi: 10.1177/0959354301116002
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost?. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77-86. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.77
Noe, R., & Wilk, S. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees' participation in development activities. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 291-302. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.78.2.291
O’Keeffe, T. (2002). Organisational learning: a new perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(2/3/4), pp.130-141.
Organ, D. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 33(2), 331. doi: 10.2307/2393071
Papaioannou, T. (2004). The globalising learning economy. Technovation, 24(3), 275-277. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2003.10.009
Pintrich, P. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544-555. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.92.3.544 Putnik, G. (2009). Complexity framework for sustainability: an analysis of five papers. The Learning
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal
Of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal Of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358-384. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005
Rimal, R. (2000). Closing the Knowledge-Behavior Gap in Health Promotion: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy. Health Communication, 12(3), 219-237. doi: 10.1207/s15327027hc1203_01
Robblee, M. A. (1998). Confronting the threat of organizational downsizing: Coping and health. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59(6-B), 3072.
Robinson, S., Kraatz, M., & Rousseau, D. (1994). Changing Obligations and the Psychological Contract: A Longitudinal Study. Academy Of Management Journal, 37(1), 137-152. doi: 10.5465/256773 Schriesheim, C., Castro, S., & Cogliser, C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A
comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly,
10(1), 63-113. doi: 10.1016/s1048-9843(99)80009-5
Schunk, D. (1990). Goal Setting and Self-Efficacy During Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist,
25(1), 71-86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Senge, S. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization, by Peter Senge, New
York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990. Human Resource Management, 29(3), pp.343-348.
Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher Self-Efficacy and Perceived Autonomy: Relations with Teacher Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Emotional Exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68-77. doi: 10.2466/14.02.pr0.114k14w0
Smith, P. and Sharicz, C. (2011). The shift needed for sustainability. The Learning Organization, 18(1), pp.73-86.
Starke, D., Chandola, T., & Godin, I. (2004). The measurement of effort–reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, 58(8), 1483-1499. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00351-4 Steele-Johnson, D., Heintz, P., & Miller, C. (2008). Examining Situationally Induced State Goal Orientation
Effects on Task Perceptions, Performance, and Satisfaction: A Two-Dimensional Conceptualization1.
Stevens, C., & Gist, M. (1997). Effects of Self-Efficacy And Goal Orientation: Training On Negotiation Skill Maintenance: What Are The Mechanisms?. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 955-978. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01490.x
Stumpf, S., Brief, A., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-related events.
Journal Of Vocational Behavior, 31(1), 91-108. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(87)90037-6
Sweetman, D., & Luthans, F. (2010). Relationship between positive psychological capital and creative performance. Canadian Journal Of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De
L'administration, 28(1), 4-13. doi: 10.1002/cjas.175
Tett, R. and Burnett, D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(3), pp.500-517.
Towler, A. and Dipboye, R. (2001). Effects of trainer expressiveness, organization, and trainee goal orientation on training outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), pp.664-673.
Turner, J., Brown, R., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism.
European Journal Of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187-204. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420090207
Usher, E., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of Self-Efficacy in School: Critical Review of the Literature and Future Directions. Review Of Educational Research, 78(4), 751-796. doi: 10.3102/0034654308321456 van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A., & Nishii, L. (2016). Accumulative job demands and support for strength use:
Fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using conservation of resources theory. Journal Of
Applied Psychology, 101(1), 141-150. doi: 10.1037/apl0000033
VandeWalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human Resource
Management Review, 13(4), pp.581-604.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W., & Slocum, J. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback.
Journal Of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 629-640. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.4.629
Vandewalle, D., Nerstad, C. and Dysvik, A. (2019). Goal Orientation: A Review of the Miles Traveled and the Miles to Go. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1),
pp.115-144.
Venkatachalam, A. (1995). The Role of National Culture in Systems Analysis and Design. Journal Of Global
Information Management, 3(3), 5-15. doi: 10.4018/jgim.1995070101
Whatley, M., Webster, J., Smith, R., & Rhodes, A. (1999). The Effect of a Favor on Public and Private Compliance: How Internalized is the Norm of Reciprocity?. Basic And Applied Social Psychology,
Wiersma, U. (1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Journal Of
Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 101-114. doi:
10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00488.x
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. (2010). Innovative Behavior in the Workplace: The Role of Performance and Image Outcome Expectations. Academy Of Management Journal, 53(2), 323-342. doi:
10.5465/amj.2010.49388995
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2004). Climate as a Social-Cognitive Construction of Supervisory Safety Practices: Scripts as Proxy of Behavior Patterns. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 322-333. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.322
APPENDIX
Appendix A: knowledge worker statistics
Appendix C: Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 36.67 10.90 2. Gender 0.57 0.49 -.207* 3. Tenure 7.63 9.09 .682** -.157 4. POS 3.77 0.55 .102 -.122 -.030 5. LGO 3.76 0.41 -.053 -.035 -.084 .094 6. SE 7. OI 3.86 3.85 0.42 0.52 .003 .249** -.149 -.061 -.034 .130 .222* .645** .428** .198* .182
Appendix D: Hierarchical regression for mediation (including Sobel test)
Self-efficacy (M) Learning Goal Orientation (DV)
Predictors Control variables Age H2: -0.00 (0.00) H1: -0.00 (0.00) H3: 0.00 (0.00) H4: 0.00 (0.00) Gender H2: -0.11 (0.08) H1: -0.03 (0.08) H3: 0.01 (0.07) H4: 0.01 (0.07) Tenure H2: -0.02 (0.00) H1: -0.00 (0.00) H3: -0.00 (0.00) H4: -0.00 (0.00) Main effects Perceived organizational support H2: 0.15 (0.07)* Sobel A H1: 0.06 (0.07) H4: 0.06 (0.07) Self-efficacy H3: 0.43 (0.08)** H4: 0.43 (0.08)** Sobel B R2 0.06 0.01 0.19 0.19
Notes. N = 116. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients; standard error estimates are in
Appendix E: Hierarchical regression table for moderation
Learning Goal Orientation (DV)
Predictors Control variables Age H1: -0.00 (0.00) -0.00 (0.00) H5: -0.00 (0.00) Gender H1: -0.03 (0.08) -0.03 (0.07) H5: 0.01 (0.07) Tenure H1: -0.00 (0.00) -0.00 (0.00) H5: -0.00 (0.00) Main effects Perceived organizational support H1: 0.06 (0.07) 0.06 (0.06) H5: 0.24 (0.05) Organizational identification Interaction POS x OI 0.06 (0.40) H5: 0.06 (0.51) H5: 0.03 (0.13) R2 0.01 0.08 0.22
Notes. N = 116. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients; standard error estimates are in
