1
_____________________________________
Whether and for whom setting multiple
goals motivates to perform better
_____________________________________
Human Resource Management Master Thesis
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. B.A. Nijstad
Shadman Jamil S3256111
s.jamil.1@student.rug.nl
2
Abstract
During the past few decades there have been several studies on the impact of goal setting on employee’s performance. Until now, researches have focused on how having a clear goal influences employees to perform better. However, as the business world is becoming more and more competitive, employees are faced with multiple goals to achieve at their work. This research was designed to determine whether and for whom setting multiple goals motivates to perform better. Researches from the past have showed that learning goal orientation and intrinsic motivation have significant impact on employees’ performance. In this research, I propose that multiple goals setting can stimulate intrinsic motivation and performance, but only when employees have a high learning goal orientation. Data were collected from 106 participants of the government and non-government organisations of Bangladesh regarding their learning goal orientation, intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction etc. and their supervisors who rated their performance. The result of this study showed that multiple goals setting was positively related to intrinsic motivation, however, the relation was not moderated by learning goal orientation. Furthermore, intrinsic motivation was unrelated to supervisor-related performance but was positively related to job satisfaction. Thus, setting multiple goals may especially benefit intrinsic motivation and job performance.
3
Introduction
Goal setting is considered to be one of the most significant aspects for an organisation due to its ability to influence employee’s motivation (Locke et al., 1981). A goal can be defined as an objective or outcome individuals are aiming for, and by comparing accomplishments with goals individuals can judge how successful they are (Locke & Latham, 2002; Reeve, 2009). It has been shown that goal setting is more effective when individuals are provided with achievable, specific and challenging targets, rather than having an unachievable or non-specific target (Locke & Latham, 1990). Specific and challenging goals allow employees to be more focused on the task and increase their competency at work (Deci, 1975). It also allows organisations to use their time and resources efficiently (Ackerman et al., 1994). As stated by Locke and Latham (2002), setting goals helps employees in two different ways: a) it motivates them to work harder to achieve their goals and b) the fear of not achieving their goals forces them to be more efficient. Therefore, having clear goals enables organisations to influence employee performance and motivation.
4 negative influence on their performance. Therefore, it is imperative to determine whether and
for whom setting multiple goals motivates to perform better.
In particular, I propose that the success of multiple goals setting depends on employees’ learning goal orientation, as it has a significant influence on their intrinsic motivation and efforts they exert to achieve their goals (Fisher & Ford, 1998). Learning Goal Orientation represents an employee’s willingness to seek challenges, opportunities to acquire knowledge and enhance their performance through perfecting competencies (Wood and Bandura, 1989). Employees with a high learning goal orientation are better at achieving multiple goals, because they tend to be more adaptive, interested in acquiring knowledge, and have higher levels of efficacy (Printrich, 2000). Learning goal orientated employees set themselves mastery goals where they target to enhance their learning to gain personal development and improve task-management (Kaplan and Maehr, 2007). Due to these characteristics, employees with learning goal orientation will perform better when they have multiple goals to achieve. As employee’s who have high learning goal orientation tend to look for more challenges and opportunities to learn, therefore, having several goals will allow them to enhance their skills and acquire new knowledge. So, they will perform better when they have multiple goals given to them.
The outcome of this study will be beneficial for both the organisations and the academics. It could be interesting for the organisations to design effective multiple goals setting for the right employees in order to get efficient performance from them. Being able to understand which traits in employee make them successful when they have multiple goals will enable organisations to filter their candidates to ensure that they are hiring the right person for the job. It could also help the organisation to design efficient training programme for the new and existing employees so that they can cope with multiple goals setting and meet expected quality of performance. It will show how multiple goals setting influence employee’s performance and what kind of employees deal with it better. This research will also contribute to the science because it examines the impact of multiple goals rather than single goal.
Multiple Goals Setting Intrinsic Motivation Performance
Learning Goal Orientation
5
Theoretical Background
It is of vital importance for organisations to have coherent goals in order to succeed in the fast moving competitive business world. Organisations achieve these goals through their employees; therefore, they need to set clear set of goals for them. Nowadays, employees often have to work towards several goals simultaneously, so it is important to understand what can enable these employees to perform better when they have multiple goals and work under pressure.
Goal setting in general has a significant impact on organisation’s success, as through goal setting management can influence and enhance employee’s motivation (Locke et.al, 1981). There have been several studies that showed the positive influence of goal setting on employee motivation (Latham, Mitchell, & Dossett, 1978; Latham & Yukl, 1975). Having goals at work allows individuals to feel competent and determined which intrinsically motivates them to work harder to achieve these goals (Deci, 1975). Assigning goals to employees means they are given more responsibilities, which shows the management trusts their ability and it provides them with a sense of empowerment and make them feel competent which enhances their intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975; Amabile, 1996; Spreitzer, 1995). Intrinsic motivation has a significant impact on employee’s performance as intrinsically motivated employees are engaged in the activities because they enjoy it and put more efforts in to it even if there are no other rewards available (Pinder, 2011). This is beneficial for the organisations especially during economic downturn when they cannot afford to offer any financial rewards and in case of smaller companies where opportunities for promotions are not available. Also due to having goals at work employees often have to acquire new methods of working to achieve their goals; therefore, it enables them to enhance their skills and be more creative. Setting goals for the future plays an important role in employee motivation, it provides them opportunity to work towards success, it is especially important after a business faced setback, as with the specific goals employees can turn their attention from the past failure and put their effort in achieving their goals (Nuttin and Lens, 1985).
6 work to achieve multiple goals. Therefore, multiple goals are most suitable for these organisations and may have a positive impact on employee motivation and performance. Although multiple goals setting can cause role conflict and stress, the most important advantage of setting multiple goals is the impact it has on employee’s learning (Zimmerman, 1989). Introducing multiple goals to employees provides them with an opportunity to enhance their knowledge and skills; for instance, they may need to learn new methods of working to be more efficient or enhance their multi-tasking skills to achieve the goals given to them. These factors have a significant impact on employee’s intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Multiple goals also provide more responsibility to the employees which work as a motivating factor as well as it allows employees to express and expand their skills, which too enhance their intrinsic motivation (Heyman & Dweck, 1992).
Intrinsic motivation of employees also has a significant influence on employee’s job satisfaction because it provides employees with the sense of achievement and creates a strong bond between the employees and the organisation, therefore, they are more satisfied at their work (Smith et al., 1996; Simons and Enz, 1995). Intrinsically motivated employees are able to carry out their task efficiently even when there is no reward, as it encourages task involvement, generate excitement and make the employees more determined (Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996). Introducing multiple goals creates an atmosphere where the employees are forced to find creative ways to deal with extra pressure to ensure they achieve their goals. It enables them to improve their existing skills and learn newer methods. Being able to enhance knowledge is a source of intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975) and motivated employees are efficient at facing challenges and improve their performance even under pressure (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Heyman & Dweck, 1992). Therefore, multiple goals and intrinsic motivation both are related and can have a significant influence on employee’s performance.
Based on above discussion the following Hypothesis could be considered:
Hypothesis 1: Multiple Goals enhance performance through intrinsic motivation
7 introducing multiple goals which are not compatible creates employee dissatisfaction. Also if the goals and priorities are unclear it will create confusion and conflict among employees, resulting poor performance. Role conflict works as a demotivating factor for employees and many react to it by lowering arousal or drive (Levine and Ursin, 1980), therefore, organisational performance suffers and organisation could lose good employees.
Employees often set goals for themselves when given multiple tasks to complete and there are typically two types of goal orientation: Learning Goal Orientation and Performance Goal Orientation (Nicholls, 1984). Learning goal orientation represents individual’s willingness to seek knowledge, their perception towards learning is that it is an opportunity to enhance their knowledge and skill rather than just meeting job criteria (Dweck, 2002). Performance goal orientation on the other hand focuses on doing better than others. Such individuals tend to follow set rules and avoid risks (Dweck and Leggett, 1988). Also they are less likely to concentrate on learning new skills and try to avoid any challenging situation (Brett and VandeWalle, 1999). So, people with these orientations are completely different from the employees who have high learning goal orientation who tend to focus on learning new skills and enhance their competence. Individuals with learning goal orientation believe that their ability can be continually improved through acquiring knowledge (Wood and Bandura, 1989), whereas individuals with performance goal orientation show lack of interest in the task or learning new skills (Yi and Huwang, 2003).
8 not want to take risk, whereas learning goal orientation motivates people to take risk and improve themselves if they are faced with failure (Cron, Slocum, VandeWalle, and Fu, 2005). Therefore, multiple goals setting should be beneficial when employees have high learning goal orientation as it will provide them more ability to face incurring challenges as well as opportunities to enhance their skills. This will also improve their intrinsic motivation as they will have more responsibility and opportunity to progress in their career. As learning goal orientation helps people to focus more on learning new skills, it can be predicted that such employees will be able to cope with several complex tasks at a time. As employees with performance goal orientation do not seek challenge it is more likely that learning goal orientated employees are more suitable for multiple goals due to their preference for acquiring knowledge and attitude towards challenging tasks (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996). Thus, having multiple goals at work will intrinsically motivate employees with high learning goal orientation as it will help them to face new challenges effectively.
Based on these discussions the next hypothesis would be:
Hypothesis 2: The positive influence of multiple goals on performance through intrinsic motivation is stronger when learning goal orientation is higher rather than low
Method
Sample and Data Collection Procedure
9 Prior to distributing the online questionnaires, permission was asked from the supervisors for collecting data from their employees. Supervisors who agreed to provide the list of employees willing to take part in this study were requested to send their e-mail addresses. Then the link for the questionnaire was sent to those employees. Having received the response from the employees, the supervisors were contacted and sent them the ‘questionnaire for supervisor’ to rate the performance of their employees. All the respondents were given the opportunity to opt-out at any time. In total there were 120 employees and 14 supervisors. However, only 106 out of 120 participants responded fully to the questionnaires, while all the supervisors participated in the performance rating of their employees. Most of the participants were male (95%) and the employees were from different age groups: there were 8 employees age from 18-27, 21 employees age from 25-34, 50 employees age from 35-44, 23 employees age from 45-54, 2 employees age from 55-64 and 65-74. Therefore, this study had employees from varied age range given a picture of how people from different age groups react to goal setting and its influence on their performance. The average tenure within the firm was 8.5 years (SD=5.55) and the average tenure with supervisor was 3.2 years (SD=3.1). All the 14 supervisors were male and on an average they had 8 employees in their team. The average tenure of supervisors with the firm was 8.5 years (SD=5.55). Supervisors performance rating shows that employees on average got 35.8 out of 42 (SD=3.1)
Measurements
The items used in this study were rated on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 represented ‘strongly agree’ and 7 ‘strongly disagree’. I used validated, existing measurement scales for Learning Goal Orientation, Performance Goal Orientation, Intrinsic Motivation, Role Conflict, Job Complexity, Paradox Mindset and Job Satisfaction. These factors were used as potential variables to determine how and if they have any influence on employee’s performance. For Multiple Goal Setting I had to develop questionnaire myself as there was no such questionnaire. The Cronbach’s alpha was checked for all scales.
Learning Goal Orientation:
10
Performance Goal Orientation
Performance goal orientation was measured by using 7 questions developed by Harris, Yuill, and Luckin (2007). These questions helped to determine the perception of employees regarding their performance and competitiveness, and performance goal orientation was measured for possible inclusion as a control variable. Example questions are: “It is important for me that I do better than others”, “I feel successful on my job when others cannot do as well as me”. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) was 0.77.
Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation was measured by using questions developed by Vallerand (1997) and Frederic, Robert, Vallerand (2000). Employees were asked: “Why do you do this job” and provided with answers such as, “For the pleasure it gives me to know more about my job”, “For the pleasure of developing new skills”. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) was 0.78.
Role Conflict
Role Conflict was measured by using 9 questions and these questions were adopted from Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) and Perrewe et al. (2004). These questions enabled participants to indicate the extent what they have to deal with conflicting tasks at work. Example questions are: “I have to do things that should be done differently”, “I receive incompatible request from management”. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) was 0.87.
Goal Setting
11
Job Complexity
Job complexity was measured by using 3 questions developed by Morgeson, and Humphrey (2006). These questions were used to determine the complexity of the tasks faced by the participants. Example questions are: “The job requires that I only do one task or activity at a time”, “The tasks on the job are simple and uncomplicated”. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) was 0.84.
Paradox Mindset
Paradox Mindset was measured by using 9 questions developed by Miron-Spektor et.al (2017). These questions were used because I was interested in the tensions which participants experience due to multiple goals and conflicting tasks and how they respond to these situations. Example questions are: “When I consider conflicting perspectives, I gain a better understanding of an issue”, “Accepting contradictions is essential for my success”, “Tensions between ideas energize me” etc. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) was 0.84.
Job Satisfaction:
Job Satisfaction was measured by 5 questions developed by Brayfield-Rothe, (1951). These questions are designed to determine how satisfied participants are with their current role. Example questions are: “I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job”, “I find real enjoyment in my work” etc. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) was 0.70.
Performance Rating
This questionnaire was sent to the supervisors/managers and it consisted of 7 questions. They were asked to rate each employees’ performance. Example questions are; “This employee fulfils responsibilities specified in his/her job description”, “This employee adequately completes assigned duties. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) was 0.70.
Data analysis
12
Result
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations and correlations among the variables of the conceptual model and the control variables which were used. As is shown in Table 1, there is no correlation between intrinsic motivation and performance (r = -.02) which is against what the model suggested. The table also shows that goal setting does not have influence on performance (r = -.04). However, there is a positive link between learning goal and intrinsic motivation (r = .62). Also intrinsic motivation has a positive correlation with goals setting (r=.27), so multiple goals potentially stimulate intrinsic motivation. Potential control variables, such as performance goal orientation, paradox mindset, job complexity, and role conflict had no significant correlation with performance. Using these factors as mediators instead of intrinsic motivation did not show any significant influence on performance either. Table: 1
Mean standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among the variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Performance 35.8 3.1 1 2. Performance Goal 5.3 0.99 .06 1 3. Learning Goal 6.35 0.49 .04 .16 1 4. Intrinsic Motivation 5.99 0.57 -.024 .42** .62** 1 5. Role Conflict 3.2 1.09 -.02 -.62** -.09 -.23** 1 6. Goal Setting 4.75 0.78 -.04 .37** .04 .27** -.39** 1 7. Paradox Mindset 5.1 0.96 -.15 .44** .15 .33** -.47** .49** 1 8. Job Complexity 4.2 0.86 -.03 .27** .19 .17 -.14 .12 .19* 1 9. Job Satisfaction 8.7 0.83 -.001 .25** .02 .29** .004 .09 .21* .17 1
Note: M-mean; SD- standard deviation; ** - significance
Hypothesis testing
13 motivation”. To test this hypothesis I examine the influence multiple goal setting has on intrinsic motivation and how intrinsic motivation relates to performance. As it is shown in Table 2 that indirect effect of multiple goals is not significant on goal setting (at any level of learning goal orientation), as all three confidence intervals include zero and also the test showed that intrinsic motivation does not influence performance. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is rejected. However, it should be noted that multiple goal setting is positively related to intrinsic motivation (the mediator).
Hypothesis 2 states: “Positive influence of multiple goals on performance through intrinsic motivation is stronger when learning goal orientation is high rather than low”. LGO had a significant influence on Intrinsic motivation (β=0.69; p<.0001), but LGO did not interact with Goal setting. The relation between multiple goal setting and intrinsic motivation is therefore not moderated by learning goal orientation, and Hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Table 2
Results of hypothesized model
Predictor Mediation Model Dependent Variable Model
Goal Setting β=0.19 t=3.37**** β= - 0.13 t= -. 31* Learning Goal Orientation β=0.69 t=8.10**** Interaction β=0.06 t=0.60 Intrinsic Motivation β=-0.09 t=-.16*
Conditional Indirect Effect
β SE LLCI ULCI
LG: Low 0.01 0.08 -0.19 0.13
LG: Medium 0.02 0.09 -0.23 0.15
LG: High 0.02 0.11 -0.28 0.16
Note: P<.05=*; P<.01=**; P<.001=***; P<.0001=****
14 Table 3
Results of hypothesized model
Predictor Mediation Model Dependent Variable Model
Goal Setting β=0.19 t=3.37**** β=0.02 t=0.19 Learning Goal Orientation β=0.69 t=8.11**** Interaction β=0.06 t=0.60 Intrinsic Motivation β=0.47 t=2.89*
Conditional Indirect Effect
β SE LLCI ULCI LG: Low 0.08 0.05 0.009 0.204 LG: Medium 0.09 0.06 0.014 0.226 LG: High 0.09 0.07 0.012 0.274 Note: P<.05=*; P<.01=**; P<.001=***; P<.0001=****
Discussion
17
Implications
This study intended to determine the effects of setting multiple goals and who would benefit from that. Finding of this study can be used for both academic and practical purposes. There have been several studies on goal setting that showed having goals improve people’s performance motivation (Locke et al., 1981; Latham & Yukl, 1975; Mento, et al., 1987; Roberts & Reed, 1996). However, those studies have focused on how having specific goal improve performance but did not concentrate the impact of multiple goals on employee’s performance. Due to the change in current business world employees are faced with multiple goals at work and it is important to determine how it influences their performance and job satisfaction. Being able to implement multiple goals efficiently and choosing the right employees can improve organisation’s performance. So it is essential to determine how setting multiple goals can improve employee’s performance. This issue has so far been ignored by researchers but it deserves more attention. Research needs to be designed to establish the ways to make the multiple goals setting a fruitful one. It will benefit the organisations and also increase employee’s job satisfaction.
18 The result of this study shows that multiple goal setting can influence employee’s intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is known to have significant influence on employees’ job satisfaction and their learning ability (Deci, 1975). This study showed that multiple goal setting did not influence participant’s performance but such setting can still benefit organisation by improving employee’s motivation. Motivation influences employee’s willingness to learn (Clark, Dobbins, and Ladd, 1993), which is essential for them to become efficient worker. Setting multiple goals can stimulate employee’s motivation and encourage them to enhance their knowledge and hone their skills. It will benefit the organisation in the long run. Also motivated employees are usually reliable and trustworthy (Campion, 1991), so management can trust them with more responsibilities and can include them as a part of their long-term future plan as these employees are less likely to leave the organisation. Therefore, multiple goal setting could be used by the organisation to stimulate motivation among their employees and enhance their learning ability. This study shows that multiple goals setting influences intrinsic motivation, future research should also focus on how such goal setting influences extrinsic motivation as it also plays a significant role in employee’s success. Being able to determine the effective multiple goals setting organisations can improve and stimulate the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of the employees which will eventually make them more efficient at work.
Limitations and future direction
Although this study revealed some results that shed light on some issues that have not been considered before, there are some limitations that should be dealt with in future. First issue is that all the participants are from the same country and culture. People from different culture tend to react differently to same situation (Kim et al., 1994). So, participants from individualistic society may have different response to multiple goals setting. Therefore, in future study it would be beneficial if participants are chosen from different countries and cultures, so that the result could be comparable to see if there are any similarities or difference.
19 their supervisors. Therefore, it was not possible to determine whether employees would perform better with multiple goal setting or how learning goal orientation and intrinsic motivation influence their performance.
One major limitation of this study is that I did not to find out the underlying reason for intrinsic motivation’s lack of impact on performance, as it was already known to enhance employee’s performance. The survey should have included questions regarding extrinsic motivation to determine the level of extrinsic motivation of the participants and also if it has a significant influence on their performance. No questions have been asked regarding the creativity of the participants, which could be included in future study to determine if people with high creativity are more intrinsically motivated or if they perform better when they have multiple goals. This study was conducted online where participants received questionnaire and answered them but there might be an issue with the reliability of their answers because they could have discussed the matter among themselves and provided similar answers, as people from collectivist culture are known to use deception in conveying behaviours and attitudes to match with others (Triandis et al., 2001). For future studies it would be beneficial if a field study is conducted where researcher can observe how the participants react when they have multiple goals followed by interview where they can express their views regarding their motivation and goal orientation.
For future studies, researchers should consider other factors such as extrinsic motivation and creativity. Also, being able to determine the psychology of the employees and their reason behind doing the job is important as well. Some people often stay at a job because it is a financial necessity, so for them, issues such as learning goal orientation or intrinsic motivations are not important and data collected from such participants will not show the true influence of those factors have on their performance. Therefore, it is essential that the researcher gets more involved with their participants and conduct field study to ensure that the data provide the true picture.
Conclusion
21
References
Ackerman, K.R, Murtha, P. L. Dugdale, T. C and Nelson, L. (1994). Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol:79(6); pp:826-835.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder. CO: Westview Press Argyle, M., (1989). The Psychology of Happiness. Routledge, London.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control .New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. 1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee "citizenship." Academy of Management Journal Vol:26; pp:587- 595. Brayfield, A. H., and Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol:35(5); pp:307-311.
Brett, J. F. and VandeWalle, D. (1999). ‘Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of performance in a training program’. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol:84; pp:863–73. Button, S., Mathieu, J., and Zajac, D. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A
conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. Vol:6; pp:26–48
Clark, A.E., (1996). Job satisfaction in Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol:4; pp:341– 372
Clark, A.E., 1997. Job satisfaction and gender: why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics. Vol:4; pp:341–372.
Clark, A.E., Oswald, A.J., (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics Vol: 61; pp:359–381
22 Clark, C. S., Dobbins, G. H., & Ladd, R. T. (1993). Exploratory field study of training motivation: Influence of involvement, credibility, and transfer climate. Group and Organization Management. Vol:18; pp:292–307
Cordova, D. I., and Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol: 88, pp:715-730.
Cron, W. L., Slocum, J. W., VandeWalle, D., and Fu, Q. (2005). The role of goal orientation on negative emotions and goal setting when initial performance falls short of one’s performance goal. Human Performance. Vol:18; pp:55–80
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Deci, E. L (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L. (1976). The hidden costs of rewards. Organizational Dynamics. Vol:4; pp:61–72.
Deci, E.L and Ryan, R.M (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychological Association. Vol. 55; pp: 68-78
Dweck, C. S. (2002), ‘The development of ability conceptions’, in A. Wigfield and J. S. Eccles (eds), Development of Achievement Motivation (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), pp. 57–8.
Dweck, C.S., and Leggett, E.L., (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review. Vol:95; pp:256–273.
Elliot A.J and Harackiewicz, J.M (1996). Approach and Avoidance Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation: A Mediational Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol: 70(3); pp: 461-475
Ferris, K. R., & Aranya, N. 1983. A comparison of two organizational commitment scales. Personnel Psychology. Vol: 36; pp:87-97.
23 Ford, M.T., Nicklin, J.M. and Cerasoli, C.P. (2014). Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives Jointly Predict Performance: A 40-Year Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication.
Guay, F, Vallerand, R.J and Blanchard, C. (2000). On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion. Vol. 24(3); pp:175-213
Goodrick E and Reay T (2011) Constellations of institutional logics: Changes in the professional work of pharmacists. Work and Occupations. Vol:38(3): pp: 372–416.
Goodrick E and Reay T (2011) Constellations of institutional logics: Changes in the professional work of pharmacists. Work and Occupations Vol: 38(3): pp: 372–416.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E.R and Lounsbury. M (2011) Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Journals Vol: 5(1): pp: 317–371.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., and Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist. Vol:33; pp:1-21. Harris, A; Yuill, N and Luckin, R (2007). Examining the consistency of mastery and performance
goals across group and perceived-ability contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol:1; pp:355-374
Heyman, G. D., and Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, Vol: 16; pp: 231-247
Kahn R.L, Wolfe, D.F. Quinn, R.P, Snoek, J.D and Rosenthal R.A (1965). Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol:10(1), PP: 125-129
Kaplan, A and Maehr, M.L (2007). The Contributions and Prospects of Goal Orientation Theory. Educational Psychology Review, vol:19 (2) pp:141-184
24 Kim, U., Triandis, H., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. and Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and Collectivism.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Latham, G. P., and Yukl, G. A (1975). A review of research on the application of goal setting in organizations. Academy of Management Journal. Vol:18, pp: 824- 845
Latham, G. P., Mitchell, T. R., and Dossett, D. L. (1978). Importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol:63(2), 163-171.
Levine, S. and Ursin, H. (1980). Coping and Health, Plenum, New York.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice Hall; Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist, Vol:57, pp: 707-717.
Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2002), Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation. American Psychologist. Vol: 57; pp: 705-717
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. M., Saari, L. M.,and Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin. Vol: 90; pp:125-152.
M. Campion (1991). Meaning and measurement of turnover: comparison of alternative measures and recommendations for research, Journal of Applied Psychology Vol:76 (2); pp. 199-212.
Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., and Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal-setting on task performance: 1966–1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol:39; pp:52–83.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. and Viswesvaran, C. (2007). ‘Inducing maximal versus typical learning through the provision of a pretraining goal orientation’, Human Performance. Vol:20; pp:205–22. Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., and Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks:
Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol:116(2): pp:229–240.
25 Morgeson, F. P., and Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol:91; pp:1321-1339
Nicholls, J.G., (1984). Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review. Vol: 91; pp:328–346.
Nuttin, J., and Lens, W. (1985). Future time Perspective and Motivation: Theory and Research Method. Leuven University Press, Leuven, Belgium
Perrewe, Pamela L., Kelly L. Zellars, and Gerald R. Ferris (2004), "Neutralizing job stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict.", Academy of Management Journal, Vol:47; pp:141-152.
Pinder, W. C. C. (2011). Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal
of Applied Psychology. Vol:88(5), 879.
Printrich, P., (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology Vol:92; pp:545–555.
Printrich, P., (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology Vol:92; pp:545–555.
Reeve, J. M. (2009). Understanding Motivation and Emotion, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Reeve, J., Nix, G., and Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol: 95, pp:375-392.
Rizzo, J. R., R. J. House, and S. I. Lirtzman (1970). "Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol:15; pp:150-163
26 Ryan, R.M (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of
personality. Vol:63; pp:397-427
Sansone, C., and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Simons, T., and Enz, C.A. (1995). Motivating hotel employees. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant. Administration Quarterly. Vol:36(1); pp:20-7.
Smets M, Jarzabkowski P, and Burke G.T. (2015) Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal Vol: 58(3): pp: 932–970.
Smith, K., Gregory, S.R., and Cannon, D. (1996). Becoming an employer of choice: assessing commitment in the hospitality workplace. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Vol:8(6); pp:3-9.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Individual empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, validation. Academy of Management Journal, Vol:38: pp:1442-1465.
Stone, D. L., and Rosopa, P. J. (2016). The Advantages and Limitations of Using Meta-analysis in Human Resource Management Research. Human Resource Management Review.Vol:27(1); pp:1-7
Sujan, H. (1994), "Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling", Journal of marketing, Vol:1; pp:39-52
Triandis, H. C. and Suh, E. M. (2002), ‘Cultural influences on personality’, Annual Review of Psychology. Vol:53; pp:133–60.
Triandis, H. C., Carnevale, P., Gelfand, M., Robert, C., Wasti, A., Probst, T., Kashima, E., Dragonas, T., Chan, D., Chen, X. P., Kim, U., de Dreu, C., van de Vliert, E., Iwao, S., Ohbuchi, K. and Schmidt, P. (2001), ‘Culture, personality and deception’, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management. Vol:1; pp:73–90.
Tubbs, M. E. (1986). Goal setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol:71, pp:474-483.
27 Wood, R., and Bandura, A., (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol:56; pp:407– 415.
Yi, M. Y and Hwang, Y (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Vol: 59; pp: 431-449
Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., and Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol:4, pp:443-446.
