Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp
Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance
Anne Nederveen Pieterse a,⇑, Daan van Knippenberg b, Wendy P. van Ginkel b
a
b
University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 July 2009
Accepted 15 November 2010
Available online 15 December 2010
Accepted by Paul Levy
Keywords:
Goal orientation
Team performance
Team processes
Diversity
Reflexivity
a b s t r a c t
Although recent research highlights the role of team member goal orientation in team functioning,
research has neglected the effects of diversity in goal orientation. In a laboratory study with groups working on a problem-solving task, we show that diversity in learning and performance orientation are related
to decreased group performance. Moreover, we find that the effect of diversity in learning orientation is
mediated by group information elaboration and the effect of diversity in performance orientation by
group efficiency. In addition, we demonstrate that team reflexivity can counteract the negative effects
of diversity in goal orientation. These results suggest that models of goal orientation in groups should
incorporate the effects of diversity in goal orientation.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Much of the behavior at work is goal-directed. Accordingly, differences in goal orientation – preferred goals in achievement situations (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) – have been shown to
exert a powerful influence on individual behavior and performance
at work (e.g., Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007; Porath &
Bateman, 2006). Given that teams and workgroups are often the
primary unit of organization (DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner,
& Wiechmann, 2004; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003) and the abundant
evidence for the influence of goal orientation at the individual level,
the question arises how goal orientation plays out in a group context.
Only recently researchers set foot in this underdeveloped area
(LePine, 2005; Porter, 2005), showing that mean levels of goal orientation affect group member attitudes and behavior. However, the
shift from the individual level of analysis to goal orientation as a
factor in team composition introduces another dimension yet unexplored in goal orientation research – diversity in goal orientation
(i.e., differences between team members in goal orientation). In view
of the evidence that diversity on a host of dimensions affects group
process and performance (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007;
Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), it is important for our understanding of
goal orientation in teams to also study the influence of goal orientation diversity. Moreover, in view of the evidence that main effects are
unable to capture the effects of team diversity (van Knippenberg &
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Human Resource Management
& Organizational Behavior, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of
Groningen, Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Nederveen Pieterse).
0749-5978/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.003
Schippers, 2007), we develop our analysis of diversity in goal
orientations so that we are able to identify a moderator of its
influence – team reflexivity (West, 1996).
Thus, we contribute to the literature in several important ways.
Our main contribution lies in the demonstration of the importance
of goal orientation diversity for team performance. We, thereby,
further develop the goal orientation framework as well as extend
research in diversity in at least two ways. By integrating insights
from research in socially shared cognition with more traditional
perspectives on diversity we extend research in diversity conceptually (cf. van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Furthermore, our
findings suggest that diversity in individual differences more proximal to behavior in achievement settings may be more influential
than the personality factors most often studied in this area (i.e.,
the Big Five; Bell, 2007). Finally, by identifying team reflexivity
as a moderator of the relationships between goal orientation diversity and group performance we both substantiate the shared cognition perspective underlying our analysis and point to a
moderator variable that provides clear opportunities for the management of goal orientation diversity.
Goal orientation
Goal orientation is a predisposition to adopt and pursue certain
goals in achievement contexts (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Payne
et al., 2007; VandeWalle, 1997). In this respect, a distinction is
made between learning orientation and performance orientation
(Dweck, 1986). Learning and performance orientation differ in
the standards used to evaluate competence. Learning orientation
154
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
makes use of an absolute or intrapersonal standard (i.e., improve
own past performance) and performance orientation draws on normative comparisons (i.e., outperform others; Elliot & McGregor,
2001; Elliot & Murayama, 2008). Goal orientation is mostly seen
as a relatively stable trait that may be influenced by situational
characteristics (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Murayama & Elliot,
2009). Although learning and performance orientation were originally seen as opposing poles (Dweck, 1986), researchers have argued that individuals often have multiple competing goals
(Button et al., 1996). Indeed, research has shown that learning orientation and performance orientation are best portrayed as separate and largely independent dimensions1 (Button et al., 1996;
Payne et al., 2007). Thus, people can be high (or low) in both learning
and performance orientation.
Goal orientation has received a tremendous amount of attention of researchers at the individual level (Payne et al., 2007), but
research has only recently started to explore effects of team composition in goal orientation on team functioning. Studies have
shown that mean levels (i.e., the average of individual members’
goal orientation) of both learning and performance orientation
are related to team functioning as evident in relationships with
such concepts as team efficacy, backing-up behavior, team commitment, and team adaptation (LePine, 2005; Porter, 2005). However, these studies of mean level effects were unable to establish
a relationship between team composition in goal orientation and
team performance.
Previous studies of goal orientation in teams have essentially
extrapolated hypotheses at the individual level to the team level,
taking mean goal orientation as the team-level analogue of individual goal orientation. While the rationale for this approach is clear
and supported by both research in goal orientation (DeShon et al.,
2004) and research in individual differences in teams more generally (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Bell, 2007), a focus
on goal orientation in teams also introduces a dimension that has
no analogue at the individual level of analysis: differences in goal
orientation between team members – goal orientation diversity.
The effects of diversity in goal orientation have been disregarded
so far. In sharp contrast with this lack of attention, there is an abundance of evidence that diversity on a variety of dimensions ranging
from demographic to individual differences may affect group process and performance (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007;
Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). This literature, especially in combination
with literature on sharedness and diversity in group members’ task
representations and task mental models, clearly hints at the possibility that diversity in goal orientation influences group performance (Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000; Mohammed & Ringseis,
2001; van Ginkel, Tindale, & van Knippenberg, 2009). This suggests
that to develop our understanding of the role of team composition in
goal orientation, we need to pay attention to goal orientation
diversity. As noted in the previous, trait learning and performance
orientation are best portrayed as independent dimensions instead
of as opposing poles. Accordingly, the study of diversity in trait goal
orientation revolves around diversity in each dimension of goal
orientation.
1
Goal orientation research has also adopted a subdivision between performance
prove and performance avoid orientation – the former reflecting the disposition to
prove one’s competence, the latter reflecting the disposition to avoid displaying
incompetence (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; VandeWalle, 1997). As different goal
orientations are orthogonal, however, they can be studied without necessarily
incorporating all dimensions (cf. Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). Consistent with the
original formulation of goal orientation theory (Dweck, 1986) and with previous
research on team composition in goal orientation that was the direct inspiration for
the current study (LePine, 2005; Porter, 2005), we focused the present analysis on the
primary distinction between learning and performance orientation (an issue we
revisit in ‘‘Discussion’’).
Diversity in goal orientation
Diversity in goal orientation may be classified as concerning
deep-level diversity (e.g., personality and individual differences,
attitudes and values; Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). One of the major perspectives within
the diversity literature, the social categorization perspective, sees
diversity as a potential source of ‘us vs. them’ distinctions, where
dissimilar others are categorized as ‘outgroup’. This may disrupt
group process and performance. While such categorizations are
not limited to demographic categories, they are more likely for categories for which individuals hold well-developed stereotypes
(Fiske, 1998), which is a condition that would seem highly unlikely
to hold for deep-level differences in goal orientation. The social
categorization perspective thus seems less suited to understand
the influence of goal orientation diversity.
The similarity/attraction perspective holds that individuals are
more attracted to similar others. As a consequence, people in teams
are more willing to collaborate with others similar to themselves
and as a result interact more smoothly with these others, rendering
homogeneity more conducive to group performance than diversity.
The similarity/attraction perspective should readily apply to deeplevel similarities and differences (Byrne, 1971), which suggests
that diversity in goal orientation disrupts group performance by
reducing the quality of team member interaction (i.e., communication and coordination). This prediction is well aligned with findings
of positive relationships between deep-level similarity and communication and interaction in teams (Harrison et al., 1998;
Mohammed & Angell, 2003).
The information/decision making perspective, in contrast,
points to the potentially positive effects of diversity. Starting point
for this perspective is the notion that differences between team
members may be associated with valuable task-relevant differences in knowledge, expertise, and perspectives, which may expand the available information in diverse teams. While such
differences in task-relevant knowledge are unlikely to be limited
to functional dimensions of diversity (van Knippenberg, De Dreu,
& Homan, 2004), they may be less prevalent for deep-level diversity and accordingly may only play a relatively modest role in
the effects of goal orientation diversity. Moreover, a more recent
integration of the different perspectives on diversity (van Knippenberg et al., 2004) suggests that social categorization and similarity/
attraction processes may disrupt elaboration (i.e., exchange and
integration) of diverse information and perspectives. This suggests
that similarity/attraction processes associated with goal orientation diversity would render it less likely that groups would benefit
from any task-relevant insights associated with diversity in goal
orientation.
The social categorization, similarity/attraction, and information/decision making perspectives are the main perspectives on
work group diversity and performance (van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Yet, there is another
perspective on deep-level diversity in particular that is typically
not recognized as a perspective on diversity (van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007): the socially shared cognition perspective.
Interestingly and importantly, we propose that this perspective is
the most relevant to understand the influence of goal orientation
diversity. Research in socially shared cognition puts group members’ mental representation of the task and the team center-stage
in understanding team performance (DeChurch & MesmerMagnus, 2010; Marks et al., 2000; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin,
Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Mohammed, Ferzandi, & Hamilton,
2010; van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2008). Guiding principle here
is the proposition that members’ mental representations of the
task and the team guide team member behavior in group interaction and group task performance. Task representations (Newell &
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
Simon, 1972) or mental models (Rouse & Morris, 1986) represent
people’s understanding of the task and how to best perform it.
The importance of the concept of task representations lies in the
proposition that individual’s engagement with a task is not a direct
function of objective characteristics of the task but rather the consequence of their mental representation of the task.
Research in socially shared cognition has highlighted the importance of sharedness of representations/mental models (i.e., similarity between group members; cf. diversity) and how sharedness of
representations/mental models may feed into team performance
(e.g., Marks et al., 2000; Rentsch & Klimoski, 2001; van Ginkel &
van Knippenberg, 2008). More specifically, low levels of sharedness
of representations (i.e., diversity of representations/mental models) have been associated with breakdowns in coordination (e.g.,
Marks, Sabella, Burke, & Zaccaro, 2002; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin,
Cannon-bowers, & Salas, 2005; Mathieu et al., 2000) and communication (e.g., Marks et al., 2000; Mathieu et al., 2000, 2005), resulting in lower team performance.
We propose that the key insight for the study of goal orientation
diversity is that there are important linkages between goal orientations and task representations. Goal orientations reflect and follow
from individuals’ understanding of the nature of ability, task
achievement, and performance (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot &
McGregor, 2001). As such, goal orientations are mental frameworks
that represent what people value in achievement situations and
therefore affect how they approach tasks and how they interpret
and respond to achievement situations (Dweck & Leggett, 1988;
VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999). Much like the perspective on task representations, goal orientation theory thus suggests
that task cognitions and subjective task goals guide task execution.
Learning orientation engenders task strategies conducive to
attaining an understanding of the task (cf. Dweck & Leggett,
1988). As a result, high learning orientation expresses itself in
deep-level information processing (e.g., Dupeyrat & Mariné,
2005; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; cf.
Chaiken & Trope, 1999). Performance orientation fosters taskexecution strategies that maximize the chance of demonstrating
high ability (cf. Dweck & Leggett, 1988). As a result, individuals
higher in performance orientation focus on those aspects of the
task that are perceived to be related to immediate performance
(cf. Elliot & McGregor, 1999; Elliot, Shell, Henry, & Maier, 2005;
Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998). Moreover, performance-oriented individuals understand performance as flowing
from ability rather than effort, and thus are more likely to favor
low-effort task-execution strategies than individuals lower in
performance orientation (Fisher & Ford, 1998).
Goal orientation theory and research has not conceptualized
these differences in achievement goals and task strategies in terms
of task representations (i.e., which also emphasize goals and strategies), but the parallels are clear. Accordingly, we may conceptualize goal orientation diversity as a dimension of deep-level diversity
akin to diversity in task representations. We propose that diversity
in goal orientation is associated with impaired communication and
coordination, and thus with lower team performance. As it is
sharedness (and not content) of task representations which is of
concern here, we expect diversity in learning orientation and diversity in performance orientation to have similar effects even though
they may relate to very different task representations. This is in
line with the similarity–attraction perspective, where the nature
(content) of the differences between team members also does
not play a role in predicting the consequences of these differences.
In sum, drawing from literatures on deep-level diversity, shared
cognition, and goal orientation, we argue that diversity in learning
orientation as well as diversity in performance orientation have
the potential to disrupt group dynamics and performance. From
these literatures difficulties with coordination and communication
155
arise as the key aspects of team functioning affected by goal orientation diversity. More specifically, we see these processes as being
primarily reflected in group information elaboration (cf. effective
task-relevant communication) and group process efficiency (cf.
efficient coordination).
Group information elaboration is defined as the exchange, discussion, and integration of task-relevant information and perspectives (van Knippenberg et al., 2004) and has been identified as a
key mediating process in the relationship between diversity and
group performance (e.g., Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De
Dreu, 2007; Kearney & Gebert, 2009; van Ginkel & van Knippenberg,
2008, 2009; cf. Dahlin, Weingart, & Hinds, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus &
DeChurch, 2009). Information elaboration is a key process in any
team task to the extent that the task has information processing,
problem-solving, and decision making components. It is an
especially salient concern in diverse groups, both because social
categorization and similarity/attraction processes associated with
diversity may disrupt elaboration and because information elaboration is the key process involved in mobilizing and using diversity as
an informational resource (van Knippenberg et al., 2004).
As argued in the previous, diversity in learning orientation and
performance orientation are associated with differences in task
strategies and attention to information. That is, differences in goal
orientation may lead group members to emphasize different information, to interpret information in reference to different goals, and
to differ in the extent to which they desire to engage in in-depth processing. Research in shared task representations/mental models
shows that such differences in task approach may impair communication between group members (e.g., Marks et al., 2000; Mathieu
et al., 2005). The process of group information elaboration relies on
the collective effort of group members to exchange, discuss, and
integrate information. When different group members emphasize
different types of information with different goals in mind (i.e., a focus on in-depth processing to reach a deep understanding vs. a focus
on informational cues to apply decision heuristics), group members
will be less likely to follow up on each others’ remarks and observations because they seem less relevant to the own informational perspective and processing goals. This in turn will discourage further
attempts at exchanging and discussing viewpoints, because it signals that contributions to the discussion are less appreciated by
the group (Edmondson, 1999). In effect, goal orientation diversity
thus lowers group information elaboration, and as a consequence
group performance.
The second group process that we propose is involved in the effects of goal orientation diversity is group process efficiency. Collaborative task performance requires coordination of efforts and
contributions (i.e., including the integration of contributions;
Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). When coordination is suboptimal it results in process losses (Steiner, 1972), which are associated with
lowered performance (e.g., Brodbeck & Greitemeyer, 2000).
Research in mental models shows that sharedness results in greater efficiency in coordination (Marks et al., 2000; Mathieu et al.,
2005). Having a common frame of references in task execution
allows group members to better anticipate each other’s behavior,
which makes it easier to understand each other and align and integrate each others’ contributions (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001). In
contrast, in teams lacking shared representations coordination is
often less smooth, requiring members to further explain, ask for,
and clarify issues (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993;
Espinosa, Lerch, & Kraut, 2004; Salas & Fiore, 2004). As this is likely
to result in a more time-consuming group interaction (cf.
Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996), time to accomplish a task is a good
proxy for group process efficiency (Brodbeck & Greitemeyer, 2000).
To illustrate this in reference to the process of information
elaboration, group process efficiency reflects the time needed to
accomplish a given level of elaboration.
156
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
Thus, as diversity in learning and performance orientation implies that contributions to collective performance are made from
the backdrop of differences in mental frameworks, the coordination of contributions and efforts are more challenging, and thus
less time-efficient. In any task context where time is limited (as
usual for teams in organizations), lowered group process efficiency
– conceptualized as time-efficiency – will go at the expense of the
quality or quantity of group performance or both (cf. Jehn, 1997).
Accordingly, we propose that group process efficiency is a second
process mediating the relationship between diversity in learning
and performance orientation, and performance.
in learning orientation and diversity in performance orientation
lower group performance because they imply lower shared understanding of the task situation at hand, we thus advance the hypothesis that team reflexivity attenuates this negative relationship. By
helping to reconcile different perspectives on the task, team reflexivity may diminish goal orientation diversity’s negative relationship with group information elaboration and group efficiency.
That is, we expect that information elaboration and group efficiency mediate the interactions of diversity in learning orientation
and diversity in performance orientation with team reflexivity on
group performance. In sum, we advance the following hypotheses.
Team reflexivity as a moderator
Hypothesis 1a. Diversity in learning orientation is moderated by
reflexivity in its relationship with group performance, such that it
is more strongly negatively related to performance for nonreflexive groups than for reflexive groups.
Diversity research suggests that diversity effects are highly contingent in nature and that a focus on ‘main effects’ is unlikely to
adequately capture diversity’s influence (van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007). We expect this to also hold for diversity in goal
orientation. This is consistent with research in individual differences that argues that situational influences may inhibit, as well
as invite, trait expression (Mischel, 1977; Tett & Burnett, 2003).
An achievement situation may invite the expression of individual
differences in goal orientation, but situational influences may also
help align resulting differences and thereby prevent negative effects of goal orientation diversity. Thus, to further develop our conceptual analysis we focused on identifying a relevant moderator of
the effects of goal orientation diversity. The additional benefit of
this focus on a situational moderator is that it helps to identify
opportunities for managerial intervention, increasing the applied
relevance of our research.
Our analysis suggests that factors that may stimulate groups to
come to a more shared understanding of the task should moderate
the effects of dispositional differences in goal orientation. Therefore, we focused on a factor that has been argued to be particularly
instrumental in creating shared understanding: team reflexivity
(van Ginkel et al., 2009; West, 1996). Team reflexivity is defined
as ‘the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon, and
communicate about the group’s objectives, strategies, and processes, and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances’
(West, Garrod, & Carletta, 1997, p. 296). Reflexivity thus differs
from information elaboration, as reflexivity is focused on discussing ‘metalevel’ issues (i.e., taking a step back to evaluate group process, strategies, and objectives) and information elaboration is
focused on processing task-relevant information.
Collectively reflecting on goals and strategies has been shown to
be valuable for team functioning and found to relate to satisfaction,
commitment, performance, and team innovation (e.g., Carter &
West, 1998; Müller, Herbig, & Petrovic, 2009; Schippers, Den
Hartog, Koopman, & Wienk, 2003; Tjosvold, Tang, & West, 2004).
Researchers have argued that teams have a natural tendency to
limit their reflexivity as they are inclined to keep to their customary routines (cf. Gray, 2007; West, 1996). However, reflexivity may
vary widely across teams in organizations and is affected by contextual variables like team leadership or team training (Hirst,
Mann, Bain, Pirola-Merlo, & Richter, 2004; Okhuysen & Eisenhardt,
2002; Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman, & van Knippenberg, 2008).
Reflexivity (i.e., discussing objectives, strategies, and processes)
has been argued to be instrumental in surfacing and clarifying differences in task representations between team members. As differences in understanding of the task may go unnoticed and continue
to negatively affect group processes, by bringing these differences
to light reflexivity may help groups to reach a more shared understanding of task strategies and goals (van Ginkel et al., 2009). Thus,
reflexivity seems particularly suited to overcome those issues that
we identified as the root cause of the negative effects of goal orientation diversity. Building on our earlier proposition that diversity
Hypothesis 1b and 1c. The interaction between diversity in learning orientation and reflexivity on group performance is mediated
by (b) group information elaboration and (c) group process
efficiency.
Hypothesis 2a. Diversity in performance orientation is moderated
by reflexivity in its relationship with group performance, such that
it is more strongly negatively related to performance for nonreflexive groups than for reflexive groups.
Hypothesis 2b and 1c. The interaction between diversity in performance orientation and reflexivity on group performance is mediated by (b) group information elaboration and (c) group process
efficiency.
We tested these hypotheses in an experiment with three-person groups working on relatively complex problem-solving tasks.
This set-up allowed us to manipulate team reflexivity and thus
to establish causality in the proposed role of reflexivity. Moreover,
the controlled set-up made it possible to assess group processes
through relatively objective behavioral measures with high internal validity (Weingart, 1997).
Method
Participants and design
Participants were 147 students from a university in The Netherlands, assigned to 49 three-person groups. One group had to be
eliminated from the study due to logistical errors. The mean age
of the participants was 20 (SD = 1.83) and 66.7% were male. The
majority of these participants were enrolled in business administration or economics (97%). A compensation of 15 € (approximately
18 USD) was paid out to participants. Groups were randomly assigned to either the reflexive or the non-reflexive condition and
measures of learning orientation diversity and performance orientation diversity were added to the design as continuous variables.
Task
Groups worked on a collective rule induction task (Laughlin &
Hollingshead, 1995). We selected this task, because it is a relatively
complex problem-solving task that entails both performance and
learning elements. Moreover, not only performance but also competence increase is feasible over the period in the lab, making both
performance and learning orientation (a focus on competence increase) realistic for participants. Therefore, both learning and performance orientation should play a role in the task, which makes it
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
possible for diversity in learning and performance orientation to
play out. Moreover, for an adequate test of reflexivity as a moderator, a task with multiple rounds was necessary. Collective induction entails a cooperative search for rules and principles, by
observations of patterns and relationships and by testing and revising hypotheses (Laughlin & Hollingshead, 1995; cf. for example the
work of scientific research teams and specialized medical teams).
Groups were to discover a series of card sorting rules using a standard deck of 52 playing cards (e.g., Laughlin & Hollingshead, 1995;
Laughlin, VanderStoep, & Hollingshead, 1991). Instructions explained that each sorting rule could be based on any attribute of
the cards (e.g., suit, color, numerical and logical sorting rules, etc.)
and several examples were given (e.g., red–black–red). The task
consisted of four games, where in each game participants had to discover a new sorting rule. At the onset of each game the experimenter
presented the group with a card that was in correspondence with the
sorting rule. Each round started with participants thinking individually what they thought the sorting rule might be. Next, they were to
come up with a group hypothesis about the rule through group discussion. Then, the group had to choose a card from the deck on which
they wanted to receive feedback whether it fitted the sorting rule.
Each round ended with feedback on the card by the experimenter.
A maximum of 10 rounds (i.e., consisting of individual hypotheses,
group hypothesis, playing a card, receiving feedback) and 10 min
were given per sorting rule. After the 10th round or when the
10 min were up, groups were to write down their final group hypothesis. After this, the experimenter informed the groups about the correct rule. Then, groups started with the next sorting rule, until four
rules were played.
Goal orientation
Goal orientation was measured using the validated 16-item questionnaire of Button et al. (1996), with eight items measuring performance orientation (a = .71, M = 3.77, SD = .49) and eight items
measuring learning orientation (a = .65, M = 3.98, SD = .38). Sample
items include ‘‘The things I enjoy the most are the things I do the
best’’ (performance orientation) and ‘‘The opportunity to learn
new things is important to me’’ (learning orientation). The items
were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (completely disagree)
to 5 (completely agree). Confirmatory factor analysis showed the
intended two-factor solution had adequate fit to the data
(v2 = 189.54, df = 103, GFI = .85, RMSEA = .08; Browne & Cudeck,
1993; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). Moreover, this model had a significant better fit than a one-factor solution; v2 = 283.47,
df = 104, GFI = .78, RMSEA = .11; Dv2 = 93.93, p < .001) or an independence model v2 = 454.62, df = 120, Dv2 = 265.08, p < .001. To
determine diversity in learning and performance orientation within
teams, we calculated the standard deviations of the learning and performance orientation scores of all team members within each team
(Harrison & Klein, 2007).
Experimental manipulation of reflexivity
Reflexivity was manipulated through written instructions.
Reflexive groups were informed that to do well on the task it
was important to discuss as much as possible how they are doing.
Before starting on the task they were given 2 min to discuss the
best approach to the task. In addition after each rule reflexive
groups were given 1 min to discuss their team work, whether they
used the right approach to the task, what caused mistakes to occur,
and how they could do better. They were encouraged to use the given time fully for this purpose, and to continue to reflect during the
task. In the non-reflexive condition groups were given no extra
instructions. These groups were given 2 min waiting time before
the first rule and 1 min after each rule.
157
Group performance, group information elaboration and group process
efficiency
Group performance was operationalized as the total number of
correct final group hypotheses, ranging from 0 (no correct final
hypotheses) to 4 (all final hypotheses correct).
Group information elaboration was measured using audio–video recordings of 44 groups (four groups had to be omitted due
to technical problems). A coding scheme was adjusted from van
Ginkel and van Knippenberg (2008), rooted in concrete behavioral
anchors, such as sharing possible solutions, discussing evidence for
or against possible solutions, explaining trains of thought to other
group members, remarks inviting information elaboration (e.g.,
‘‘let’s keep our options open’’, ‘‘what else could it be?’’), and elaboration avoidant remarks (e.g., ‘‘just do whatever’’, ‘‘it doesn’t matter anyway’’). Two coders blind to the conditions rated the groups
on information elaboration giving a score from 1 to 5, where a
higher score represented more information elaboration. One coder
rated all groups, and the second coder rated a subset of 30% of the
groups to determine interrater reliability (M = 2.99, SD = 1.17,
r = .92). As reliability was sufficiently high the ratings of the first
coder were used in analyses.
Group process efficiency was operationalized following
Brodbeck and Greitemeyer (2000) as the time (in seconds) taken
for group discussion before deciding which hypothesis to write
down and which card to play. Longer time reflects lower efficiency.
Previous research suggests the independence of time-efficiency
and information elaboration in group work (cf. Scholten, van
Knippenberg, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2007). Indeed, in the present
study information elaboration and group efficiency were not related (r = .12, ns). Moreover, our analyses enabled us to control
for information elaboration when examining group efficiency and
vice versa.
Manipulation check and controls
As a manipulation check for the reflexivity manipulation four
questions were adjusted from Schippers, Den Hartog, and Koopman
(2007; M = 3.25, SD = .71, a = .61). A sample item is ‘‘As a group we
reviewed various approaches to the task’’ 1 (completely disagree)
to 5 (completely agree).
In addition, we included a number of controls. We measured
task liking using three items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). As task liking may
vary greatly between people and may affect performance independently of our predicted effects, controlling for it allows us to filter
out its influence on performance. A sample item is ‘‘I liked working
on the task’’ (M = 3.87, SD = .67, a = .66). For exploratory purposes,
we included a more and a less difficult version of the task. Preliminary analysis indicated that while performance was lower on
the difficult version of the task, task difficulty did not moderate
any of the relationships of interest, rendering it essentially irrelevant to the current purposes. We included a dummy representing
task difficulty as a control to reduce error variance. We also controlled for gender diversity to make sure our findings for goal orientation diversity were unrelated to potential gender differences.
We also added mean learning and performance orientation to
the model. Previous studies have indicated that goal orientation is
related to several team level variables and we were interested in effects of diversity in goal orientation independent of mean levels.2
2
As the task also has disjunctive elements we also tested whether the maximum
level of learning and performance orientation exerted an influence on group process
or performance. No significant effects of maximum goal orientation were found. As
maximum levels of goal orientation correlated very highly with both mean and
diversity in goal orientation we left them out of our final model to avoid issues of
multicollinearity.
158
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables.
Variable
M
SD
1. Task difficulty
2. Task liking
3. Gender diversity
4. Mean learning orientation
5. Mean performance orientation
6. Diversity in learning orientation
7. Diversity in performance orientation
8. Reflexivity
9. Group process efficiency
10. Group information elaboration
11. Team performance
–
3.87
.32
3.97
3.77
.34
.43
–
29.73
2.99
1.56
–
.44
.20
.22
.28
.16
.23
–
5.24
1.17
.99
1
2
.35**
.12
.07
.17
.12
.08
.05
.01
.05
.42**
3
.10
.24
.22
.05
.09
.08
.20
.43**
.52**
4
.07
.01
.04
.13
.28*
.01
.12
.08
5
.14
.04
.14
.02
.07
.12
.02
6
.24
.08
.24
.03
.25
.08
7
.27
.07
.05
.02
.06
8
.12
.17
.10
.17
9
.18
.07
.11
10
.12
.41**
.58**
N = 48, for correlations with group efficiency and information elaboration N = 44.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
Moreover, inclusion of the mean learning and mean performance orientation also adds to the comparability with previous study findings
(LePine, 2005; Porter, 2005).
Procedure
On arrival in the laboratory participants were seated separately
and asked to fill out a questionnaire including a measure of goal orientation. When finished they read the instructions for the group
task and in the reflexivity condition they were given the reflexivity
instructions (see above). When all group members were finished
reading the instructions, they were seated at one table as a group
and the experimenter repeated the basic task instructions. In the
reflexivity condition the reflexivity instruction was repeated and
they were given 2 min to discuss how to approach the task. In the
non-reflexive condition groups received no extra instructions and
were given their first exemplar after 2 min. Then groups started
on the task as described above. After 5 min groups were warned that
they had 5 min left. After each rule the reflexive groups were given
1 min to reflect and the non-reflexive groups waited for 1 min for
the next game to start. After the final rule group members were
seated separately again and were given a final questionnaire including manipulation checks and controls after which they were debriefed, thanked, and paid out for their participation. The entire
experiment took approximately one and a half hours.
Results
Preliminary analyses and manipulation check
Table 1 displays all correlations. No significant correlations
were found between the independent variables and control variables. Group information elaboration, group efficiency, task difficulty, and task liking were related to team performance.
Awg(1) values were calculated to check whether agreement on
the manipulation check of reflexivity warranted analysis at the
group level. Awg(1) index has been proposed to overcome several
limitations attached to the Rwg index (Brown & Hauenstein,
2005). A value of .85, well above the threshold of .70 (Brown &
Hauenstein, 2005) was found, justifying group-level analysis. In
addition, ICC values indicated group-level analysis was warranted
(ICC1 = .18; ICC2 = .65). A regression analysis of the reflexivity
manipulation check on all variables was performed. Only a main
effect of the reflexivity manipulation was found (b = .37, b = .36,
p < .05), such that groups in the reflexive condition scored higher
on the measure than groups in the non-reflexive condition. No
interactions or other main effects were found. These findings indicate the effectiveness of the reflexivity manipulation.
Hypothesis testing
We used hierarchical multiple regression to test the hypotheses.
Centered variables were used, following Aiken and West (1991). In
the first step the regression model included the control variables,
reflexivity (dummy coded .5 and +.5), diversity in learning orientation, and diversity in performance orientation. Task liking was, as
expected, positively related to group performance. No other main
effects were found. In the second step the interactions of reflexivity
with diversity in learning orientation and diversity in performance
orientation were added. The second step had a significant added
value over the model in the first step. Table 2 shows the results
of these analyses.
As expected (Hypothesis 1a) we found moderation by reflexivity of the relationship between diversity in learning orientation
and group performance (see Fig. 1). Next we performed simple
slopes analysis, following Aiken and West (1991). For groups in
the non-reflexive condition a negative relationship of diversity in
learning orientation with group performance was found
(b = 3.49, b = .58, p < .01). For the reflexive groups a positive
relationship between diversity in learning orientation and performance was found (b = 2.15, b = .36, p < .05). Moreover, for highly
diverse groups (+1 SD) reflexivity had a positive relationship with
performance (b = .78, b = .40, p < .05). Unexpectedly we found
reflexivity to have a negative relationship with group performance
for more homogeneous ( 1 SD) learning oriented groups
(b = 1.00, b = .51, p < .01).
In line with Hypothesis 2a, an interaction was found between
reflexivity and diversity in performance orientation on group
performance (see Fig. 2). Simple slopes analysis showed that for
non-reflexive groups diversity in performance orientation had a
negative relationship with group performance (b = 2.73,
b = .63, p < .001). For the reflexive groups no relationship between diversity in performance orientation and performance was
found (b = .70, b = .16, ns). Also, we found reflexivity to have a positive relationship with performance for groups highly diverse in
performance orientation (b = .64, b = .33, p < .05). Finally, for
groups with low diversity in performance orientation we found a
negative relationship between reflexivity and group performance
(b = .86, b = .44, p < .01).
Until recently little attention had been paid to the methodology
of simultaneous testing of multiple mediators (Preacher & Hayes,
2008). An obvious reason is the complexity of these models. However, simultaneous testing has some clear advantages over the
testing of several simple mediations; it reduces parameter bias
and it is possible to test whether specific mediators mediate the effect of x on y conditional on other mediators in the model. Therefore, Preacher and Hayes (2008) argue against using the causal
159
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
Table 2
Hierarchical regressions.
Variable
Step 1
b
Task difficulty
Task liking
Gender diversity
Mean learning orientation
Mean performance orientation
Diversity in learning orientation
Diversity in performance orientation
Reflexivity
Diversity in learning orientation* reflexivity
Diversity in performance orientation* reflexivity
Step 2
SE b
.52
1.12
.28
.49
.26
.52
1.00
.16
.26
.31
.64
.57
.48
.79
.57
.26
t
b
.27
.50
.06
.11
.07
.09
.23
.08
2.02
3.66**
.43
.86
.55
.66
1.75
.63
b
SE b
.73
1.51
.51
.81
.59
.56
.94
.11
5.41
3.29
.23
.27
.54
.48
.41
.65
.48
.22
1.41
.97
t
b
.37
.68
.10
.18
.17
.09
.22
.06
.45
.38
3.25**
5.66**
.94
1.69
1.46
.86
1.96
.51
3.84**
3.41**
R2 = .43** for Step 1; DR2 = .20** for Step 2.
N = 48.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
Team performance
2.5
2
1.5
1
non-reflexive groups
reflexive groups
0.5
low
high
Diversity in learning orientation
Fig. 1. The interaction between diversity in learning orientation and team
reflexivity on team performance.
Team performance
2.5
2
1.5
1
non-reflexive groups
reflexive groups
0.5
low
high
to test whether information elaboration and group efficiency mediated the interactions of reflexivity with diversity in learning orientation and diversity in performance orientation on group
performance (Hypotheses 1b, 1c, 2b, and 2c). The method allows
for simultaneous testing of direct and indirect (through mediators)
effects of independent variables on the dependent variable. Full
mediation can be concluded when the specific indirect effect of
the interaction on the dependent variable through the mediator
differs from 0 and the total (indirect + direct) effect of the interaction on the dependent variable differs from 0, but the direct effect
of the interaction on its own does not differ from 0.
The specific indirect effect of the interaction of diversity in
learning orientation with reflexivity on performance through
information elaboration was significant (point estimate = 1.54,
SE = 1.04, 95% CI: .15–4.37) in line with Hypothesis 1b (see
Fig. 3). However, the specific indirect effect through group efficiency was not significant (point estimate = .85, SE = .70, 95%
CI = .03 to 2.84), opposing Hypothesis 1c. The total effect (indirect + direct) of the interaction of diversity in learning orientation
with reflexivity on performance differed from 0 (point estimate = 5.84, SE = 1.46, t = 4.01, p < .001) and was stronger than
the direct effect alone (point estimate = 3.45, SE = 1.39, t = 2.49,
p < .05), showing partial mediation.
Against expectations (Hypothesis 2b) no specific indirect effect
of the interaction between diversity in performance orientation
and reflexivity on group performance through information elaboration was found (point estimate = .37, SE = .50, 95% CI = .45 to
1.68). However, the specific indirect effect through group efficiency
was significant (see Fig. 4), in line with Hypothesis 2c (point
Diversity in performance orientation
steps method by Barron and Kenny (1986) for testing models with
multiple mediators. In addition, the use of bootstrapping techniques is generally most appropriate for testing indirect effects,
as the sampling distribution is rarely normal or symmetrical, violating the assumptions of the normal-theory tests for mediation
(e.g., Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Bootstrapping is a non-parametric test, which does not require assumptions
of normality of the sampling distribution. It involves repeated
resampling from the dataset to estimate an empirical approximation of the sampling distribution of the indirect effects. Bootstrapping has been frequently used in former research to test for
mediation (e.g., Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008). Therefore,
we used the Preacher and Hayes method for multiple mediation
3,8
Group information elaboration
Fig. 2. The interaction between diversity in performance orientation and team
reflexivity on team performance.
3,3
2,8
2,3
non-reflexive groups
reflexive groups
1,8
low
high
Diversity in learning orientation
Fig. 3. The interaction between diversity in learning orientation and team
reflexivity on group information elaboration.
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
Group efficiency
160
non-reflexive groups
reflexive groups
low
high
Diversity in performance orientation
Fig. 4. The interaction between diversity in performance orientation and team
reflexivity on group process efficiency.
estimate = .57, SE = .43, 95% CI = .002–1.98). The total effect
(indirect + direct) of the interaction on performance also differed
from 0 (point estimate = 3.11, SE = .95, t = 3.26, p < .01) and was
stronger than the direct effect on its own (point estimate = 2.17,
SE = .85, t = 2.54, p < .05), showing partial mediation.
Discussion
Recent findings in team research suggest that goal orientation
not only has relevance for individual performance but also as a
team composition variable (LePine, 2005; Porter, 2005). We add
an important new dimension to this emerging field of research
by demonstrating the influence of goal orientation diversity in
teams. Results confirmed our proposition that diversity in learning
orientation as well as diversity in performance orientation has a
negative relationship with group performance, which can be counteracted by reflexivity. Also, results give insight into the underlying
processes by showing that the interaction for diversity in learning
orientation was mediated by group information elaboration and
the interaction for diversity in performance orientation was mediated by group efficiency.
Theoretical implications
Our results demonstrate that diversity in goal orientation indeed plays a role in team functioning, and – in contrast to mean
levels of goal orientation – also in team performance. Previous research has shown the value of mean goal orientation for group
member attitudes and behavior, but no relationship with group
performance was found (e.g., Porter, 2005).3 The fact that we found
diversity in goal orientation to be related to group performance
when mean goal orientation was not, tentatively suggests that goal
orientation diversity may be a more important influence on team
performance than the specifics of this goal orientation per se. Clearly,
future replications and extensions are in order to bolster this conclusion. Even so, the present findings indicate that one cannot simply
extrapolate goal orientation research from the individual level to
the team level, as on the team level additional issues come into play
that are fundamentally different from the individual level due to differences between team members. Thus, the findings seem to put a
3
Bunderson and Sutcliffe (2003) examined team learning orientation as a team
climate variable and found a curvilinear relationship with team performance. While
their focus on team climate is distinct from the current focus on individual differences
– including the mean of these individual differences – we explored the possibility that
mean learning orientation had a curvilinear relationship with performance. This
relationship was not significant.
premium on the study of goal orientation in teams with attention
to the influence of goal orientation diversity.
An interesting unpredicted outcome of the present study is that
diversity in learning orientation was related to group performance
through information elaboration, while diversity in performance
orientation affected group performance through process efficiency.
Thus, even though diversity in both orientations had similar relationships with performance, the disparity in mental frameworks
between the orientations did play out in differing underlying processes. A possible explanation for these differential pathways may
be found in differences between learning orientation and performance orientation at the individual level of analysis. Learning orientation more than performance orientation has been linked to
differences in information processing, both in terms of the depth
of processing and (by implication) in terms of the information to
which individuals are likely to attend (e.g., informational cues that
can be used in decision heuristics). We outlined in the introduction
how such differences in emphasis would result in lower elaboration, and indeed this proposition was supported. While the basis
for decisions may thus be poorer as a consequence of more shallow
information elaboration, this need not express itself in lowered
efficiency in coming to an agreement about task-relevant issues
(cf. Kooij-De Bode, van Knippenberg, & van Ginkel, 2008; Scholten
et al., 2007). Differences in performance orientation, in contrast,
are less related to information processing but more to strategy
preferences (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 2000). Such differences may
lower group process efficiency by increasing the difficulties in
aligning different contributions, but they do not necessarily stimulate or impede discussion of decision-relevant information. That is,
the differences in task approach associated with different levels of
performance orientation are less likely to express themselves in
the processing of information, and accordingly less likely to affect
group information elaboration. Even so, they may reduce group
process efficiency when they result in less successful or slower
integration of contributions made from different strategic
perspectives.
Diversity in learning orientation was found to relate positively
to performance when groups reflected on their processes, goals,
and strategies. This finding is in line with the information/decision
making perspective, which argues that diversity may have positive
consequences. Moreover, in a recent integration of the diversity literature researchers have proposed that diversity may contribute
useful insights, but only when barriers to information elaboration
have been removed (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). In our study
the creation of a shared understanding through team reflexivity
served this purpose. Interestingly, this positive relationship was
only obtained for learning orientation diversity. This is consistent
with the finding that only learning orientation diversity was related to information elaboration and with the proposition that
information elaboration is the key process mediating the positive
effects of diversity (van Knippenberg et al., 2004).
The finding that diversity in goal orientation plays an important
role in group functioning demonstrates the role of goal orientation
in social interactions. Relatively little attention has been paid to
this area of research, and the present research adds to claims of
the importance of this relatively new area in the literature (e.g.,
Darnon, Butera, & Harackiewicz, 2007; Janssen & van Yperen,
2004). Our study shows that goal orientation is not merely an intra-psychic phenomenon with effects occurring only within individuals, but has distinct intragroup effects. Interestingly and
importantly, however, these effects do not obtain from goal orientation per se (i.e., mean goal orientation) but from differences in
goal orientation.
The moderating effect of reflexivity suggests support for our
claim that aligning task representations may help groups deal with
diversity in goal orientation. Although we did not measure
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
sharedness of task representations, previous research has underlined the relationship between reflexivity and shared understanding of the task (van Ginkel et al., 2009). This implies that other
variables that affect sharedness of task representations may also
help in dealing with diversity in goal orientation. For example,
variables that have been related to shared mental models may be
of influence here, such as team size or team experience (Rentsch
& Klimoski, 2001). In addition, leaders may instigate a shared mental model (cf. Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers,
1996; van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, in press) and align task strategies, possibly decreasing effects of diversity in goal orientation.
Also, as research has shown that goal orientation can be induced
by situational characteristics (Button et al., 1996), stimulating similar (state) goal orientation within a team may be beneficial. Finally, the moderating effect of reflexivity implies that teams in
situations which provide limited opportunities for discussion or
interaction, such as virtual teams, may be more prone to suffer
the negative consequences of goal orientation diversity.
With homogeneity in learning orientation as well as homogeneity in performance orientation, reflexivity was less beneficial. This
is in line with previous research that unexpectedly found negative
effects for reflexivity (De Dreu, 2002). De Dreu speculated that
reflexivity may not affect team performance itself, but may serve
as a moderator either causing constructive controversy and exploration of differing viewpoints leading to positive outcomes, or
causing concurrence seeking and limited breadth of information
search leading to negative consequences. Our study seems not only
to validate his argument, but to take a step further by determining
what circumstances may determine these alternative effects. It
seems that discussing similar goals, strategies, and processes
may have limited added value. Moreover, reflecting on similar
goals and strategies may overly strengthen team members’ positions causing processes in line with groupthink, which diminish
team performance (De Dreu, 2002; Janis, 1972). Positive effects
of reflexivity may instead only occur when it is necessary to align
group members, when constructive controversy over differing
viewpoints may improve performance. Thus, in other words the effects of reflexivity may be moderated by ‘need for reflexivity’. This
may be an important extension in the reflexivity literature.
The results of our study may also have implications for research
in diversity in personality and individual differences more generally. Results in this domain have been remarkably inconclusive
(Bell, 2007). A reason for this may be that the variables studied
were often quite distal to behavior in achievement settings (i.e.,
primarily the ‘‘Big Five’’ factors of personality). Diversity of individual difference variables more proximal to behavior in achievement
settings such as goal orientation may therefore have stronger effects. Accordingly, it may be worthwhile for future research in this
domain to focus on such variables more proximal to behavior in
organizations.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
The present study is not without limitations. Our study made
use of a laboratory setting with a student sample. Although obvious benefits are increased control, evidence for causality, and relatively objective measurement of team process (i.e., through
observation rather than retrospective self-rating) and performance,
the use of a laboratory setting may raise questions concerning generalizability. However, previous studies have demonstrated that
findings in the laboratory are often replicated in the field and there
is no reason to expect students to differ from other populations in
their behavior in achievement settings (e.g., Brown & Lord, 1999;
Dipboye, 1990; Locke, 1986). The goal of the present study was
not to demonstrate external validity, but to study underlying relationships for which a laboratory setting is most appropriate (cf.
161
Brown & Lord, 1999; Mook, 1983). However, to address concerns
some may have with issues of generalizability, replicating the present findings in the field would be valuable.
While the measure of goal orientation we employed (Button
et al., 1996) is thoroughly validated and used by much recent research on the topic (e.g., DeShon et al., 2004; Porter, 2005), performance orientation may be subdivided into prove (or approach) and
avoid dimensions (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; VandeWalle, 1997;
some argue the same holds for learning orientation, Elliot &
McGregor, 2001, but this is considerably more controversial, e.g.,
DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). Our study does not speak to this distinction. A recent meta-analysis suggests that the measure of performance orientation we employed mainly concerns performance
prove/approach orientation (Payne et al., 2007). Our study thus
can be taken to speak to performance prove orientation, but does
not speak to the influence of performance avoid orientation – the
disposition to avoid being perceived as incompetent. The inspiration for our study was recent work on goal orientation in teams
which worked from the two-dimensional distinction between
learning and performance orientation (DeShon et al., 2004; LePine,
2005; Porter, 2005). Previous research found mainly this distinction to play a role in interpersonal settings (e.g., Poortvliet, Janssen,
Van Yperen, & Van de Vliert, 2007). Moreover, our analysis focused
on task representations as the focal underlying mechanism where
differences in achievement standards are the focal concern, not differences in approach or avoidance motivation. As the dimensions
of goal orientation are orthogonal, not including a performance
avoid measure does not disqualify the current findings for learning
orientation or performance (prove) orientation.
Nevertheless, examining effects of diversity in performance
avoid orientation would have added value to research on goal orientation in teams. We would predict that our analysis extends to
performance avoid orientation, as diversity in performance avoid
orientation should also relate to differences in task representations. Therefore, diversity in performance avoid orientation may
similarly relate to diminished group performance – unless teams
create greater sharedness through reflexivity. Moreover, as performance avoid orientation holds similar achievement standards as
performance approach orientation (i.e., normative), but like learning orientation has been related to deep information processing
(but negatively; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999) both information
elaboration and efficiency may be relevant mediating processes.
Future research including the performance avoid dimension may
not only validate this suggestion, but also examine whether our
initial evidence for the greater impact of diversity compared to
mean effects of team composition in goal orientation holds for all
components. Considering the extensive negative consequences of
performance avoid orientation, mean (or maximum) composition
effects might be as large as or even overshadow diversity effects
on this dimension. As previous research into team composition in
goal orientation has also only included the main distinction between learning and performance orientation, studying all dimensions in future research seems desirable.
We developed our theoretical analysis around an integration of
research in goal orientation and research in socially shared cognition. While shared cognition typically is not recognized as reflecting
diversity (or rather, the reverse), the present support for our analysis
corroborates the usefulness of conceptualizing deep-level dimensions of diversity like goal orientation in terms of task representations. We acknowledge that we did not establish this link between
goal orientation diversity and (shared) task representations empirically, but derived it from the strong linkages between goal orientation theory and theories of task representations and mental
models. Therefore, it would be valuable if further research would
empirically establish the link between goal orientation and task representations, not only because it would provide further validation
162
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
for the current analysis, but also because it would more firmly open
the door for an integration of research in diversity and research in socially shared cognition. In this respect, it is important to realize that
learning orientation and performance orientation capture different
task representations, and accordingly that operationalizations
should reflect this. An interesting, related question is whether a conceptualization in terms of task representations is also useful in
understanding the influence of diversity in other deep-level dimensions, and potentially also of other types of diversity such as functional diversity which may be associated with different task
representations through training and education rather than
disposition.
Finally, the collective induction task employed in this study was
selected because it contained both performance and learning elements. Although collective induction is an intellective task, it requires the generation of hypotheses and thus creative problemsolving plays a role in task performance. Previous research has argued that diversity of opinions, expertise, and perspectives may be
more helpful on these tasks (van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Therefore, the positive effect of diversity
in learning orientation might not have occurred on a task with less
problem-solving requirements. Moreover, the detrimental effects
of diversity in goal orientation may be more pronounced on different kinds of tasks. In contrast, effects of mean goal orientation may
be more pronounced on tasks where either a high performance or
high learning orientation is more clearly advantageous (e.g., a task
for which adjusting to changed circumstances is highly relevant for
team performance; cf. LePine, 2005) and we should be careful not
to discard the possibility that mean levels of goal orientation may
under specific circumstances affect team performance.
Managerial implications
Several studies have advanced the suggestion of selecting
employees on the basis of goal orientation (e.g., VandeWalle
et al., 1999). Based on the present study we would add that organizations may be well-advised to take into account the goal orientation of other team members when making selection decisions.
When forming teams selecting team members with similar levels
of goal orientation may be worthwhile. This is especially true when
it is unlikely that the team will engage in high levels of reflexivity.
Results of the present study may imply more generally that it is
useful to base the profile of the ideal applicant (at least partly)
on the team members he or she will be working with.
Moreover, our results show that reflexivity may counter the detrimental effects of diversity in goal orientation. Thus by stimulating
team reflexivity organizations may attenuate the negative influence
of diversity in goal orientation. This may be achieved through training teams to foster team reflexivity (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002)
or by aligning task strategies by other means, for example by giving
clear directions for the best strategy. In addition, although goal orientation is a relatively stable trait, it can be affected by situational
factors (Button et al., 1996). Therefore, inducing a shared state goal
orientation may help teams be more effective, for example by
emphasizing the importance of learning or performance and competition, or by suitable compensation and feedback systems.
Conclusion
As organizations make more and more use of teams as their basic units, the study of what affects team functioning and performance is gaining in importance. Recent research has shown the
important role of team composition in goal orientation for team
functioning. The present study extends and develops this emerging
literature by establishing the influence of diversity in goal orientation on team processes and performance. In addition, the identifi-
cation of a means to counteract these effects opens up promising
future research opportunities.
References
Aiken, J. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. New York: Sage.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member
ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.
Barron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615.
Brodbeck, F. C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2000). A dynamic model of group performance:
Considering the group members’ capacity to learn. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 3, 159–182.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Brown, R. D., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An
alternative to the rwg indices. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 165–184.
Brown, D. J., & Lord, R. G. (1999). The utility of experimental research in the study of
transformational/charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 531–539.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation
and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 552–560.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational
research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 67, 26–48.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in
expert team decision making. In N. J. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group
decision making: Current issue (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carter, S. M., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness and mental health in
BBC production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583–601.
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York:
Guilford Press.
Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team diversity and information
use. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1107–1124.
Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Achievement goals in social
interactions: Learning with mastery vs. performance goals. Motivation and
Emotion, 31, 61–70.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance
of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 70, 285–298.
DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of
effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53.
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal
orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096–1127.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D.
(2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation
of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
1035–1056.
Dipboye, R. L. (1990). Laboratory vs. field research in industrial and organizational
psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.). International review of
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 5). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Dupeyrat, C., & Mariné, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation,
cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with
returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 43–59.
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 245–273.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals
and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 968–980.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of
approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 628–644.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal framework. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies,
and exam performance: A meditational analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 549–563.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals:
Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,
613–628.
Elliot, A. J., Shell, M. M., Henry, K., & Maier, M. (2005). Achievement goals,
performance contingencies, and performance attainment: An experimental test.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 630–640.
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
Espinosa, J. A., Lerch, F. J., & Kraut, R. (2004). Explicit vs. implicit coordination
mechanisms and task dependencies: One size does not fit all. In E. Salas & S. M.
Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and
performance (pp. 107–130). Washington, DC: APA.
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal
orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397–420.
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 357–411).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships
of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning
outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218–233.
Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). ‘‘License to fail’’: Goal definition,
leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness
after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
105, 14–35.
Gray, D. E. (2007). Facilitating management learning: Developing critical reflection
through reflective tools. Management Learning, 38, 495–527.
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of top management
team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 659–684.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000).
Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting
interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
316–330.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography:
Time and the effect of surface- versus deep-level diversity on group
cohesiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as
separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 32, 1199–1228.
Hirst, G., Mann, L., Bain, P., Pirola-Merlo, A., & Richter, A. (2004). Climbing the
learning curve: Leadership learning the relationship with adaptive decision
processes, leader role performance and project performance. Leadership
Quarterly, 15(3), 311–327.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007).
Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: The effects of diversity beliefs on
information elaboration and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 1189–1199.
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton.
Janssen, O., & van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of
leader–member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job
satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368–384.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in
organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes:
The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
77–89.
Kooij-De Bode, H. J. M., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2008). Ethnic
diversity and distributed information in group decision making: The
importance of information elaboration. Group Dynamics, 12, 307–320.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In
W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.). Handbook of psychology:
Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). London: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A.
(1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental
and task contingent leader roles. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 4, 253–305.
Laughlin, P. R., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1995). A theory of collective induction.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 94–107.
Laughlin, P. R., VanderStoep, S. W., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1991). Collective
versus individual induction: Recognition of truth, rejection of error, and
collective information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61, 50–67.
LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects
of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal
orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1153–1167.
Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field: Ecological validity or
abstraction of essential elements. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from
laboratory to field settings (pp. 3–9). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1, 130–149.
Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of crosstraining on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3–13.
Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of
leader briefings and team interaction training for team adaptation to novel
environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971–986.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000).
The influence of shared mental models on team processes and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Cannon-bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2005).
Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: Equifinality and normative
comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 37–56.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535.
163
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S.
Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional
psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which
differences make a difference for team performance? Small Group Research, 34,
651–677.
Mohammed, S., & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group
decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 310–335.
Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year
review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36(4),
876–910.
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38,
379–387.
Müller, A., Herbig, B., & Petrovic, K. (2009). The explication of implicit team
knowledge and its supporting effect on team processes and technical
innovations: An action regulation perspective on team reflexivity. Small Group
Research, 40, 28–51.
Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2009). The joint influence of personal achievement
goals and classroom goal structures on achievement-related outcomes. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 101, 432–447.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (Eds.). (1972). Human problem solving. Engelwood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How
simple formal interventions help. Organization Science, 13, 370–386.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination
of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
128–150.
Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, W. (2007).
Achievement goals and interpersonal behavior: How mastery and performance
goals shape information exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33,
1436–1447.
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185–192.
Porter, C. O. L. H. (2005). Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior,
performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 811–818.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Rentsch, J. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). Why do great minds think alike? Antecedents
of team member schema agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,
107–120.
Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and
limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363.
Salas, E., & Fiore, S. M. (2004). Why team cognition? In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.),
Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance
(pp. 3–8). Washington, DC: APA.
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity
and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and
group longevity, and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 779–802.
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2007). Reflexivity in teams: A
measure and correlates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56,
189–211.
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008).
The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity. Human
Relations, 61, 1593–1616.
Scholten, L., van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007).
Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of
process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 539–552.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental
studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7,
422–445.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.
Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M. L., & West, M. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in
China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Group and Organizational
Management, 29, 540–559.
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal
orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57,
995–1015.
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, B., & Slocum, J. (1999). The influence of goal
orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal
field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 249–259.
van Ginkel, W. P., Tindale, R. S., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Team reflexivity,
development of shared task representations, and the use of distributed
information in group decision making. Group Dynamics, 13, 265–287.
van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Group information elaboration and
group decision making: The role of shared task representations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 82–97.
van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Knowledge about the distribution
of information and group decision making: When and why does it work?
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 218–229.
164
A. Nederveen Pieterse et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 153–164
van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (in press). Group leadership and shared
task representations in decision-making groups. Leadership Quarterly.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity
and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review
of Psychology, 58, 515–541.
Weingart, L. R. (1997). How did they do that? The ways and means of studying
group process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 189–239.
West, M. A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual
integration. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology
(pp. 555–579). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
West, M. A., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (1997). Group decision-making and effectiveness:
Unexplored boundaries. In C. L. Cooper & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s
organizations: A handbook for future research in organizational behavior
(pp. 293–316). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations:
A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.