2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Participative Goal Setting in Self-Directed Global Virtual Teams: The Role of
Virtual Team Efficacy in Goal Setting Effectiveness and Performance
Andrew Hardin
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
[email protected]
Clayton Looney
University of Montana
[email protected]
Mark Fuller
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
[email protected]
Gregory Schechtman
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
[email protected]
Abstract
SDVT as a geographically unrestricted group of
people who use information technology to
collaborate, and who have the freedom and
discretion to organize their work, group structure,
and communication processes to best pursue their
goals. Note this definition encompasses globally
distributed SDVTs. Such teams are particularly
germane to this research as the ability to establish
efficient goal setting processes is critical in
geographically distributed, culturally diverse teams.
While the organization of work and group structure
constitute essential ingredients to the success of
SDVTs, the current study focuses specifically on the
participatory goal setting process used by these
globally distributed virtual teams.
Research shows that the process of setting goals
improves productivity [7], satisfaction [8], intrinsic
motivation [9], persistence in the face of obstacles
[10] and employee performance evaluations [11].
While much of the goal literature focuses on
individuals,
other
research
suggests
that
participatively set group goals may improve
performance outcomes through various motivational
processes [12-14]. Because of the overlap between
the motivational forces operating within goal theory
and social cognitive theory (SCT), individual and
collective efficacy beliefs have frequently been
evaluated for their role in the goal setting process.
However, to our knowledge no research has
simultaneously explored the relationship of collective
efficacy and group goals in a global virtual team
context.
As such, the objective of this study is to extend
research examining how virtual team efficacy
(VTE)—a domain specific form of collective
efficacy—impacts global virtual team performance
through specific mediating processes. We accomplish
this objective by empirically assessing the direct
relationship of VTE to goal specificity and goal
difficulty, and its indirect relationship with goal
commitment. We then examine the relationships of
the goal related variables with actual SDVT
performance. A multi-wave, survey methodology was
The frequent use of global virtual teams for
accomplishing organizational tasks helps explain the
continued interest in research designed to identify
and disentangle the relationships among factors
influencing team performance. Participative goal
setting represents one factor that may be particularly
important in these settings. 52 self-directed global
virtual teams, consisting of 318 participants, were
observed during the life cycle of a team project in
order to examine these critical relationships. As
hypothesized, results reveal that virtual team efficacy
(VTE) indirectly relates to goal commitment through
the participative process of setting specific and
difficult goals. In turn, participatively setting difficult
goals and the teams’ commitment to those goals
directly affects actual performance. These findings
extend prior research applying social cognitive
theory (SCT) in global virtual team research.
Implications for theory and practice, as well as
opportunities for future research are discussed.
1. Introduction
Global virtual teams are increasingly used to
accomplish work in today’s organizations. Some
reports indicate that over half of all professional
employees currently work, or have worked, in virtual
teams [1]. The frequent use of global virtual teams is
expected to continue, given the benefits that such
teams provide, including reduced travel costs [2], the
ability to select the right employee skill set for a
project regardless of location [3, 4] and the growing
availability of increasingly sophisticated technology
to support such distributed work [5].
In many cases, global virtual teams are
responsible for decisions about their own work
processes and objectives, a work structure referred to
as the Self-Directed Virtual Team (SDVT). While
some research has addressed SDVTs [6], formal
definitions of these self-guided teams are mentioned
less frequently. In the current study, we refer to an
1530-1605/12 $26.00 © 2012 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2013.442
362
363
used to assemble the responses of the SDVT
members during the life cycle of a global virtual team
project. Results demonstrate the positive relationship
of VTE to the goal related variables, as well as
relationships between SDVT performance and goal
difficulty and commitment. The value of these
respective findings lies in the provision of valuable
theoretical and practical insight into the unique nature
of goal setting in SDVTs.
goal setting process. In addition, we investigate the
relationships of goal specificity, difficulty, and
commitment on actual performance.
2. Theory
2.1. Virtual Team Efficacy
Social cognitive theory (SCT) proposes a triadic
reciprocal relationship between the person, the
environment, and behavior. Couched within the
person element of SCT is self-efficacy, a cognitive
process responsible for a number of self-regulatory
processes impacting individual level behavioral
outcomes. While much of the SCT literature has
focused on individual self-efficacy beliefs, a large
body of research has also been conducted at the
group level. At the group level, studies are primarily
concerned with the influence of collective efficacy
beliefs on group level behavioral outcomes.
Collective efficacy refers to a general level concept
reflecting a group’s perceived conviction that it can
successfully accomplish a task within a specific
domain [26].
Developed as a specific form of collective
efficacy used in the prediction of virtual team
outcomes, VTE is formally defined as, “a group’s
belief in its ability to work together successfully in a
noncollocated, technology-mediated environment”
[5], p 215. VTE develops through similar sources,
serves similar functions, and operates through similar
processes as the more general concept of collective
efficacy. Sources used in the development of VTE
include enactive mastery (e.g., hands on experience),
vicarious experience (e.g., behavior modeling
training), verbal persuasion (e.g., coaching) and
affective states (e.g., anxiety).
While these sources are commonly investigated in
efficacy studies, the processes through which these
beliefs influence behavioral outcomes are less
frequently investigated. The exclusion of these
mediating mechanisms has occurred despite
Bandura’s [27] admonition that failing to include
these processes results in only weak tests of SCT.
While these mediating process are known to operate
at the individual and group levels, the mechanisms
through which they influence behavioral outcomes
may differ depending on the level of analysis. At the
group level, mediating processes include cognitive
factors (e.g., transactive memory, group think),
motivational factors (e.g., effort, persistence),
affective states (e.g., group anxiety, conflict), and
selective processes (e.g., goal selection, conflict
management techniques).
These group level
mediating processes can also differ depending on the
domain in which they are investigated. In the current
1.1. Global Virtual Teams
Prior research defines virtual team interaction as
“geographically unrestricted.” [15] Global virtual
teams are composed of two or more people, often
culturally diverse, distributed across time and/or
space, working together toward a shared goal [16].
Global virtual teams bring value in part due to their
ability to organize by electronic workflow instead of
physical location [17], and also by allowing
organizations to bring multiple perspectives to bear
on important issues [18].
Understanding the
functioning of such teams has become a rich area of
research with many studies examining how global
virtual teams differ from co-located teams in terms of
coordination and communication [19-21], as well as
how they are affected by the technologies that
underlie virtual teamwork [22, 23].
1.2. The Self Directed Global Virtual Team
Based upon the concept of the self-directed work
team (SDWT), self-directed virtual teams (SDVTs)
represent a specific form of virtual team commonly
used to solve organizational problems [6]. Similar to
SWDTs, SDVTs lack formal leadership, forcing team
members to internally determine their roles and
responsibilities. While obvious differences exist
between SDWTs and SDVT’s (particularly in the
latter’s need to organize their activities in
geographically distributed, technology-mediated
environments), SDVT’s also share many common
traits with SDWTs. For example, members of
SDVTs must similarly decide how to work together,
as no manager exists in any traditional sense [24].
This requirement of self-management requires SDVT
members to master a broader skill set in order to
capably engage in decision-making, task planning,
and execution [25].
While past research on SDVTs has examined
several success factors, little research has focused
specifically on the participative goal-setting
processes of these distributed teams. In the current
study, we look at the unique nature of goal setting in
SDVTs, specifically examining how virtual team
efficacy (VTE) acts as an important antecedent to the
364
363
study, thee context of interest is geographically
y
distributed
d, technology mediated team
ms. Therefore,
the specific form of collective efficacy
e
mostt
predictive is VTE.
Goals can bee set externaally, or throuugh a
G
Paarticipative deecision
particcipative proceess [40].
makiing refers to tthe joint manaagement of perrtinent
aspeccts of work methods, tassk schedulingg, and
assiggnment of grooup members to tasks undder the
team
m’s control [41]. In situationns where SDVT
Ts are
used,, the team is eempowered w
with the discrettion to
deterrmine and execcute courses oof actions theyy deem
approopriate to reaach their goalls [41, 42]. Thus,
particcipative goal ssetting can be conceptualizeed as a
speciial form of partticipative decission making.
C
Consistent witth social iddentity theoryy, the
empoowerment to participate in teeam goal settinng may
also increase the m
member’s social identificatioon and
mitment to thee group [43]. Collectively ssetting
comm
challlenging perforrmance goalss results in higher
produuctivity and satisfaction [40, 44].
These
relatiionships devellop during thee accommodattion of
inforrmation proceesses associatted with colllective
cognnition [45] thaat presume a group level effect
beyoond the sum off the individuaal efforts of thee team
mbers.
mem
2.2. Goals
The im
mpact of individual goals on organizationall
performancce has been th
he focus of oveer four decadess
of research
h [28, 29]. Bro
oadly speaking
g, goals can bee
seen as an
n outcome that a person expllicitly seeks to
o
accomplish
h [30].
Mo
ore specifically, goals aree
commonly
y defined as desired end states to bee
achieved within
w
a specifi
fic period of tim
me [31]. Goalss
are also suggested
s
to stimulate hum
man behavior,
motivating
g individuals to achieve performancee
outcomes [32]. Thus,, the core off goal theory
y
hat consciously held goals will
w ultimately
y
suggests th
affect actio
on [33].
Goals influence performance thrrough severall
ms [31]. Firsst, goals cognitively and
d
mechanism
behaviorally stimulate effort.
e
Goals also
a
galvanizee
y
effort towaards the pursuaance of end staates, especially
when goalls are difficult to achieve [10].
[
Finally,,
goals ind
directly increaase task perrformance by
y
motivating
g people to find and usse appropriatee
knowledgee and strategiess [34]. Taken in total, goalss
enhance peerformance “b
because they mobilize
m
effort,,
direct atteention, and encourage peersistence and
d
strategy deevelopment” [3
32].
Goals that are speecific and diffficult lead to
o
n less specificc, easier goalss
higher perrformance than
[31]. Beccause “do-you
ur-best” goalss are defined
d
idiosyncrattically, lack off specificity ressults in a broad
d
range of acceptable
a
perfformance leveels that do nott
necessarily
y invoke the motivational
m
pro
ocesses, which
h
lead to hig
gher performaance. Easily atttainable goalss
also fail to
o serve in a motivational
m
cap
pacity, and aree
therefore less effective at increasing
g performancee
than are difficult goals.
c
iss critical to th
he performancee
Goal commitment
enhancing effects of setting goaals [35, 36].
g a moderating
g effect of goal commitment,,
Suggesting
the respecctive influencce of goal sp
pecificity and
d
difficulty is
i increased when
w
commitment to goals iss
high [37].
ugh less studiied, the mediaating effect off
Althou
group leveel goal commitm
ment has also been proposed
d
[13]. In
n the latter case,
c
it appears that goall
commitmeent may explaiin how goal specificity
s
and
d
difficulty influence perrformance ou
utcomes. Goall
y
commitmeent has also been suggesteed to directly
influence performance outcomes, as a team’ss
o commit to a goal increasses the team’ss
decision to
performancce by encouraaging all mem
mbers to strivee
harder [38]] and collaboraate more intenssely [39].
3. R
Research Moodel & Hypotheses
Inn this researchh, we examinee the role of vvirtual
team
m efficacy (VT
TE) as an important anteceddent to
the S
SDVT goal settting process. Specifically, V
VTE is
sugg ested to be inddirectly related to goal comm
mitment
throuugh goal speccificity and goal difficulty. Goal
difficculty, goal speecificity, and ggoal commitmeent are
then proposed aas predictors of actual SDVT
perfoormance. The ffollowing sectiions provide suupport
for thhe research moodel depicted inn Figure 1.
Figure
e 1: Research
h Model
3.1. Virtual Teaam Efficacy as an Antecedent
he Goal Setting Process
to th
S elf-efficacy rresearch repeaatedly demonnstrates
that efficacy belieefs predict thhe activities ppeople
pursuue. Naturally, people do noot jump in to water
withoout first belieeving they cann swim [27]. Thus,
peopple’s beliefs in their abilitiess direct the acttivities
they pursue, as well as their effoort and persisteence in
mplishing thosse activities.
accom
365
364
Collective efficacy beliefs operate in a similar
manner to self-efficacy beliefs. Groups naturally
decide which activities to pursue based upon their
perceptions of the team’s conjoint capabilities. A
number of factors influence these perceptions.
Individual abilities and self-efficacy beliefs of the
team members, group level factors such as trust and
cohesion, process related factors such as competition
and cooperation, and task related factors such as task
importance
[45].
In
technology
mediated
environments, group level factors such as group
potency and computer collective efficacy may also
precede the development of collective efficacy beliefs
[5]. Developing a collective belief in the team’s
ability takes time because it involves the
development of a group level cognition beyond the
sum of the individual members’ self-efficacy beliefs
[27]. Thus, the measurement of collective efficacy
beliefs require the establishment of group level
agreement through the application of statistical
techniques such as the rwg(j) coefficient [46], or the
calculation of interclass correlations [47].
Teams with higher collective efficacy beliefs tend
to be more effective [48]. Consequently, groups with
higher collective efficacy are also likely to be more
effective during the goal setting process [14]. As a
result, groups with higher collective efficacy set more
specific and difficult goals than do traditional groups
with lower collective efficacy [49-51]. VTE
represents a domain specific form of collective
efficacy [5]; in a global virtual team context, VTE is
expected to be a significant, positive predictor of the
specificity and difficulty of goals set participatively
by the SDVTs.
Hypothesis 4: Goal difficulty will be significantly
positively related to goal commitment
Hypothesis 1: Virtual team efficacy will be
significantly positively related to goal specificity.
3.2. Goals and SDVT Performance
SCT suggests specific mediating mechanisms
through which collective efficacy beliefs influence
behavioral outcomes. Among these mediating
mechanisms are selective processes. Teams with
higher collective efficacy tend to set more specific
and difficult goals, and the process of selecting those
goals can influence various behavioral outcomes
including commitment to team goals. Based on the
theoretical mechanisms of SCT, the relationship of
collective efficacy to goal commitment is expected to
be indirect through the participative process of setting
specific, difficult goals. Groups with higher
collective efficacy tend to set more specific and
difficult goals [40], and group goal commitment is
higher when collective efficacy and the level of goals
are congruent [14]. In globally distributed contexts
this effect may be even more pronounced because it
is during the process of setting goals that distributed
members begin to identify with the team. Team
identification in turn impacts commitment to group
goals [40]. If teams with high VTE set easily attained
or non-specific goals, incongruence will occur. As a
result, members will be less likely to be committed to
the team’s goals.
Hypothesis 5: Goal specificity will partially mediate
the relationship between virtual team efficacy and
goal commitment.
Hypothesis 6: Goal difficulty will partially mediate
the relationship between virtual team efficacy and
goal commitment.
Goals
positively
impact
organizational
performance at both the individual and group levels.
Goals can be viewed as an outcome, which
organizational members seek to accomplish. Goals
stimulate human behavior that motivates effort used
to achieve performance outcomes, whether
individually, or in groups. Goals indirectly increase
task performance by helping individuals and groups
find and use appropriate knowledge and strategies, as
well as by directly encouraging members to strive
more vigorously [38] and collaborate more intensely
[39].
In global virtual teams, goal setting
effectiveness constitutes an important component of
team success [52]. Goal difficulty and commitment
have both been demonstrated to directly influence
virtual team performance [53, 54]. Specific goals
enhance performance to a greater extent than nonspecific goals. Therefore, goal specificity should also
share a positive relationship with actual performance.
Hypothesis 2: Virtual team efficacy will be
significantly positively related to goal difficulty.
Participatively setting goals leads to a stronger
identification with the team’s decision making
processes,
in
turn
impacting
downstream
commitment to those goals [40].
However,
commitment to goals often relies on the nature of the
goals set by the team. Teams are suggested to be
more committed to difficult, specific goals than either
moderately difficult or idiosyncratically defined “doyour-best” goals [37]. In other words, the process of
participatively setting specific, difficult goals aids in
the development of commitment to those goals.
Hypothesis 3: Goal specificity will be significantly
positively related to goal commitment
366
365
as establishing goals through the specific goal setting
processes germane to this research, were both wellestablished predictors of virtual team success. No
other manipulations were imposed.
Hypothesis 7: Goal specificity will be significantly
positively related to actual performance
Hypothesis 8: Goal difficulty will be significantly
positively related to actual performance
4.3. Data Collection
Hypothesis 9: Goal commitment will be
significantly positively related to actual performance
Three surveys were administered during the
project. Demographic information was collected at
project initiation. To allow sufficient time for group
level perceptions to develop, VTE was collected
several weeks after the project started [26]. To reduce
the possibility of common-method variance, goalrelated data were collected a few weeks after the
VTE measure was administered [56]. Actual
performance was evaluated following project
completion, which occurred several weeks later.
4. Methodology
Data were collected during a large scale research
project focused on global virtual team effectiveness.
In all, 52 SDVTs, consisting of 318 undergraduate
and graduate business students from universities in
the United States, the United Kingdom, and Hong
Kong, participated in the study. To maintain realism,
group size and makeup were not controlled, however
teams had at least one member from each university
participating in the respective projects. This method
possesses the advantage of nurturing the development
of a general research model that can be confidently
applied in future studies, maximizing theoretical and
practical relevance [5].
4.4. Goal Specificity, Difficulty, and
Commitment
Goal measures were adapted from the prior
literature. A one to seven Likert-type scale anchored
by strongly disagree and strongly disagree was used.
The measurement items, factor loadings, and crossloadings were all within accepted conventions1.
Cronbach’s alpha for goal specificity, goal difficulty,
and goal commitment was .92, .76, and .95,
respectively.
4.1. Technology
WebCT was used to facilitate the SDVT projects.
A popular online learning environment, WebCT can
be used for facilitating both on campus and distance
learning courses. WebCT was selected as the
collaborative platform for the project because of its
ability to facilitate group discussion and the goal
setting process (e.g., e-mail and discussion boards),
its ability to allow for the sharing of project
documents, and its common use among the
participating universities. The ability for instructors
to return graded deliverables to the project teams was
an additional benefit provided by the WebCT
platform.
4.5. Virtual Team Efficacy
Virtual team efficacy was assessed using an
existing four item measure developed and validated
by [5]. Consistent with recommendations for
collective efficacy scales [57], a yes/no, 10 to 100
scale was utilized. Cronbach’s alpha for the virtual
team efficacy measure was .95.
4.6. Actual Performance
4.2. Tasks
Team performance was measured via a percentage
based final project grade (0 to 100) awarded by an
instructor unaware of the study hypotheses.
Tasks completed by the SDVTs involved business
problems described in the “choose” quadrant of the
McGrath [54] circumplex, a well-known taxonomy of
group task types [55]. Specifically, project tasks
involved deciding on issues with no correct answer
(i.e., decision-making tasks). Business problems
included the development of a project plan using
project management principles, and in some cases,
involved the development of an e-commerce web
site. Virtual teams were allowed to assign and
structure the project tasks as desired, and were free to
set their own goals. Students were counseled that
being aware of the skills of their teammates, as well
5. Analysis
A two-step process was used to evaluate the
group-level model. First, intergroup agreement
among the respective SDVTs was evaluated. The
measurement and structural models were then tested.
1
Instrument development details were omitted
due to space constraints, but are available as an
appendix upon request from the first author.
367
366
Bolger [62], were used. Baron and Kinney [61]
recommend that the direct path between the
independent and dependent variables should be
established prior to including the mediating variable
in the model. In the current study, this means that the
direct path from VTE to goal commitment should be
estimated first. The weight associated with this path
was .568 and significant at the p < .001 level.
The second step involves estimating the paths
from the independent variable(s) to the mediating
variable. In the current study, this requires using the
paths from VTE to goal specificity and goal difficulty
estimated previously (.481. and .546 respectively).
The final step recommended by Baron and Kinney
[61] involves estimating the path from the
independent variable to the dependent variable with
the mediating variable(s) in the model. In the current
study, this means estimating the path from VTE to
goal commitment with both goal specificity and goal
difficulty included in the model. The path from VTE
to goal commitment was not significant (.114),
indicating that goal specificity and difficulty
collectively mediated the VTE goal commitment
relationship.
Although the resultant non-significant path
between VTE and goal commitment would normally
be interpreted as indicating complete mediation under
the Baron and Kenny [61] guidelines, Shrout and
Bolger [62] recommend estimating the effect
proportion mediated (PM) as an additional measure of
the strength of mediation in the model. In the current
model, calculating this effect is particularly
important, as it allows for a closer examination of the
respective partial mediating effects of goal specificity
and difficulty. PM is calculated by first estimating the
indirect effect (the regression weight from the
independent variable (IV) to the mediating variable
multiplied by the regression weight from the
mediating variable to the dependent variable (DV))
when the direct path is included in the model, and
then dividing by the regression weight from the IV to
the DV (step 1 as recommended by Baron and
Kinney [61]).
To evaluate the respective PM for goal specificity
and goal difficulty, two steps are necessary [62].
First, the weight associated with the path from VTE
to goal specificity (.480) multiplied by the regression
weight associated with the path from goal specificity
to goal commitment (.492) are used to calculate an
indirect effect of .236. The indirect effect is then
divided by the weight associated with the direct path
from virtual team efficacy to group outcome
perceptions (.568), as estimated in step 1 of the
procedure recommended by Baron and Kinney [61].
This results in a PM of .415. Next, the weight
associated with the path from VTE to goal difficulty
5.1. Step 1 - Intergroup Agreement
To insure the presence of a group level effect,
intergroup agreement must be established before
individual level responses can be aggregated to the
group level [26]. One method for demonstrating
agreement is through the calculation of the rwg(j)
coefficient, which is well-suited for studies involving
multi-item latent constructs. This approach
overcomes the “all-or-nothing” proposition ascribed
to common methods used for establishing agreement
for single-item measures [58]. The rwg(j) formula
was applied to the VTE, goal specificity, goal
difficulty, and goal commitment measures. Each
exceeded the .7 value advocated as sufficient for
establishing intergroup agreement [59]. Based upon
the results of this analysis, the study data were
aggregated to the group level.
5.2. Step 2 - Model Tests
The relatively small group level sample (52
groups) precluded the use Covariance Based SEM.
Components based PLS was therefore used to
evaluate the measurement and structural models.
5.3. Measurement Model Results
Following aggregation, SmartPLS 2.0 was used to
reevaluate the validity of the VTE, goal specificity,
goal difficulty, and goal commitment measures
previously established at the individual level using
AMOS 19 (details available from the first author
upon request). Results revealed that all items loaded
above .6 on their respective constructs, demonstrating
the convergent validity of the measures. Discriminant
validity was established in two ways. First, the square
root of the average variance extracted (AVE)
exceeded the respective constructs’ correlation with
any other variable in the model. Second, all item
loadings and cross-loadings exceeded the minimum
difference of .10 [60].
5.4 PLS Model Results
Supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2, virtual team
efficacy was significantly, positively related to goal
specificity (b = .481, t (51) = 5.915, p < .001), and
goal difficulty (b = .546, t (51) = 9.629, p < .001).
Goal specificity (b = .524, t (51) = 5.915, p < .001)
and goal difficulty (b = .441, t (51) = 9.629, p < .001)
were in turn significantly, positively related to goal
commitment, supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.
To evaluate Hypotheses 5 and 6, procedures
recommended by Baron and Kinney [61],
complemented by those recommended by Shrout and
368
367
inconnsistent with goal theoryy, no relatioonship
betw
ween goal speciificity and actuual performancce was
obserrved (Hypotheesis 7). We suspect that this result
may have occurredd because the ggoal specificityy items
weree focused moree on process-reelated activitiees than
on outcomes-relaated activitiess. Therefore, goal
speciificity may noot have invokked the motivaational
proceesses necessaary for increeasing perform
mance
outcoomes. Consisteent with goal thheory, goal diffficulty
and ggoal commitm
ment were foundd to be significcantly,
posittively related tto actual performance (Hypootheses
8 andd 9).
(.546) mulltiplied by the regression weiight associated
d
with the path from goal difficu
ulty to goall
u
to calculate an indirectt
commitmeent (.394) are used
effect of .215.
.
This is then divided by
b the weightt
associated with the direct path from
m virtual team
m
o group outco
ome perceptio
ons (.568), ass
efficacy to
estimated in
i step 1 of thee procedure reccommended by
y
Baron and
d Kinney [61]. The result is a PM of .379.
Summing these two ratios results in a total PM off
79) = .794 witth 1.0 represen
nting completee
(.415 + .37
mediation. The results off this analysis provide
p
furtherr
support forr Hypotheses 5 and 6.
Failing to support Hypothesis
H
7 th
he relationship
p
between go
oal specificity and actual perrformance wass
non-signifiicant (b = -.205, t (51) = 1.49, ns).
Supporting
g Hypothesis 8, goal difficulty
d
wass
significantly, positively related
r
to actuaal performancee
(b = .236, t (51) = 2.39, p < .001). Finaally, supporting
g
Hypothesiss 9, goal com
mmitment wass significantly,
positively related to actu
ual performancce (b = .405, t
4, p < .001). Results
R
are dep
picted in Tablee
(51) = 2.44
1.
Table 1: PLS Results
6.1. Theoretical IImplicationss
B
By examining the impact off VTE on thee goalsettinng processes oof SDVTs, thiss study extendss prior
reseaarch in the arreas of globall virtual team
ms and
particcipative goal setting. Consistent with SC
CT and
goal theory, VTE
E predicted the difficultyy and
DVTs.
speciificity of goalss participativelyy set by the SD
Conttributing to theeory in this area, the relatioonship
betw
ween VTE and goal commitm
ment was foundd to be
mediiated by the coombined effectts of goal speccificity
and ggoal difficultyy. This findingg extends the global
virtuaal team and participative gooal setting literratures
by eestablishing thhat teams witth higher VT
TE are
comm
mitted when setting more specific and more
difficcult goals. Thhis finding iss important beecause
priorr research haas generally assumed a direct
relatiionship betweeen collective efficacy andd goal
comm
mitment in tradditional teams.
U
Unexpectedly, goal specificitty was unrelaated to
actuaal performancee. This non-siggnificant relatioonship
may be due to the measure of goal speccificity
emplloyed in the cuurrent study, aas it was designed to
focuss on process- rrather than ouutcome-related goals.
This finding is impportant, as it enncourages the ppursuit
of reesearch investtigating the poossible relationships
betw
ween process-rrelated goals and other global
virtuaal team successs factors. Goaal difficulty annd goal
comm
mitment were significant, poositive predicttors of
SDV
VT performancce. These findiing help to brroaden
the aapplication of goal theory bby establishingg these
relatiionships in a geograpphically distrributed
envirronment wheree goals were pparticipatively set by
the members. Thhis later findding is particcularly
impoortant because it implies thaat in SDVTs, where
decissions are made internally by the team
m, the
difficculty of goalss set by the teeam, as well as the
team
m’s commitmeent to those goals foster global
virtuaal team succeess, adding to the broad rannge of
literaature on this toopic. Cumulatiively, these finndings
also extend the VTE nomoloogical networrk by
articuulating additioonal mechanissms through which
VTE
E influences behhavioral outcom
mes.
6. Discusssion
Hypoth
heses 1 and 2 results reveaaled that VTE
E
significantly, positively predicts the specificity
s
and
d
o goals set paarticipatively by
b the SDVTs.
difficulty of
This findin
ng is consisten
nt with SCT, as well as priorr
findings reeported in the group literatu
ure. Consistentt
with goal theory,
t
Hypoth
heses 3 and 4 results revealed
d
that goal specificity and goal diifficulty weree
r
to goall commitment.
significantly positively related
The relatio
onship between
n VTE and goaal commitmentt
was partiaally mediated
d by goal sp
pecificity and
d
difficulty respectively
r
(H
Hypotheses 5 an
nd 6), resulting
g
in a co
omplete mediation of th
he VTE-goall
commitmeent relationship
p. This finding
g is consistentt
with the group level goaal setting literaature, in which
h
uence of collecctive efficacy beliefs
b
and thee
the congru
difficulty of
o goals are expected
e
to result in greaterr
goal com
mmitment. Uneexpectedly, and
a
somewhatt
369
368
6.4. Limitations
Research
6.3. Practical Implication
The establishment of a positive relationship
between VTE and goal setting in SDVTs provides
valuable guidance to organizational managers
interested in improving the performance of globally
distributed teams. For example, in an effort to raise
the VTE of SDVTs (and ultimately goal setting
effectiveness), specific managerial interventions can
be designed around the four sources of efficacy
information specified by SCT. For example, enactive
mastery gained through prior performance or handson training is suggested to be the strongest source of
efficacy building information.
Activating VTE
beliefs in a similar manner, training interventions that
provide opportunities for SDVTs to practice their
skills may be implemented by managers, boosting
VTE beliefs, and ultimately improving goal-setting
processes in globally distributed virtual teams.
Another source of efficacy, vicarious experience,
can be delivered through the observation of others, or
oneself, demonstrating a given task or skill. Based on
this knowledge, managers can provide opportunities
for SDVTs to observe other teams as they successful
participate in task-related activities. When attempting
to influence efficacy through observation, it is also
common to edit video tapings to reflect only
successful behavior. In a similar manner, managers
could record SDVTs as they participate in video
conferencing
meetings,
or record
desktop
conferencing and chat sessions, and then edit those
recordings so that only successful interaction is
shown, thus increasing VTE.
The third source of efficacy information, verbal
persuasion,
is
provided
through
feedback
mechanisms, with positive feedback tending to boost
efficacy perceptions. This is perhaps the easiest
method for managers to implement. When globally
distributed SDVTs engage in effective decisionmaking, managers should provide feedback that
reinforces such behavior. Reward structures that
incent team effectiveness could be designed as an
additional feedback mechanisms used to increase
VTE in a reciprocal fashion.
Finally, psychological and affective states can
also affect efficacy beliefs. In these situations, rather
than designing training initiatives, managers may
need to simply monitor SDVTs for signs of physical
and emotional stress and take action when signs are
detected. For example, providing SDVTs with
unscheduled breaks, or providing extracurricular
entertainment
activities,
may
reduce
the
psychological and affective states that are detrimental
to the SDVTs wellbeing, and ultimate performance.
and
Implications
for
As with all studies, this study has its limitations.
While a field study adds realism to the research, the
methodology does not allow for the control of
extraneous factors that may have influenced our
results. Despite this limitation, we believe the
methodology offered several benefits. For instance,
the multi-wave survey allowed us to better control for
common method variance than using a crosssectional design, and the results are applicable to a
wider range of virtual teams and tasks than if we had
used a controlled experimental setting. The use of
student subjects may also be criticized; however,
their use in studies for developing theoretical insight
in collaborative studies is not uncommon, and
generally recognized as informative in such settings.
Nonetheless, future research should attempt to
replicate our findings in organizational settings, using
complementary methodologies where possible.
7. Conclusion
This study examined the participative process of
setting goals in globally distributed SDVTs,
highlighting how virtual team efficacy (VTE), a
domain specific form of collective efficacy, acts as an
important antecedent to the SDVT goal-setting
process. Specifically, VTE was found to influence
goal commitment through the participatory process of
setting specific and difficult goals. This finding was
argued to have important theoretical and managerial
implications. In terms of theory, the finding that goal
specificity and difficulty mediate the relationship
between VTE and goal commitment extends prior
research finding a direct effect of externally set goals
on goal commitment, yet no direct effect for
participatively set goals. In terms of practice, the
establishment of VTE as an antecedent to the SDVT
goal setting process was argued to provide valuable
organizational insight that can be used to develop
training interventions for boosting VTE beliefs, thus
improving the downstream participative goal setting
processes of SDVTs.
Goal difficulty was found to have a direct
relationship with actual performance in addition to its
indirect effect through goal commitment. This
finding was argued to have additional theoretical and
managerial implications by establishing a potential
mediating effect of goal commitment beyond the
moderated and direct effects often reported in the
literature. Finally, this research provides valuable
theoretical and practical insight into the goal setting
process within geographically distributed, technology
mediated environments, providing the groundwork
370
369
[16] Cummings, J.N., Espinosa, J.A., and Pickering,
C.K., "Crossing Spatial and Temporal Boundaries in
Globally Distributed Projects: A Relational Model of
Coordination Delay", Information Systems Research, 2009,
pp. isre.1090.0239.
[17] Dutton, W.H., Society on the Line: Information on
Politics in the Digital Age, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY, 1999.
[18] Kiesler, S., and Cummings, J., "What Do We
Know About Proximity and Distance in Work Groups? A
Legacy of Research", in (Hinds, P., and Kiesler, S., 'eds.'):
Distributed Work, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2002, pp. 57-80.
[19] Fiol, C.M., and O’connor, E.J., "Identification in
Face-to-Face, Hybrid, and Pure Virtual Teams: Untangling
the Contradictions", Organization Science, 16(2005, pp.
19-32.
[20] Gibson, C.B., and Cohen, S.G., Virtual Teams
That Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team
Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2003.
[21] Jarvenpaa, S.L., Shaw, T.R., and Staples, D.S.,
"Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of
Trust in Global Virtual Teams", Information Systems
Research, 15(3), 2004, pp. 250-267.
[22] Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., and Rosen, B.,
"Leading Virtual Teams", The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 21(1), 2007, pp. 60-70.
[23] Zigurs, I., " Leadership in Virtual Teams:
Oxymoron or Opportunity?", Organizational Dynamics,
31(4), 2003, pp. 339-351.
[24] Lepree, J., "Quality Strategies '95: Building
Teams", Chemical Marketing Reporter, 247(17), 1995, pp.
6-7.
[25] Mohammed, S., Mathieu, J.E., and Bartlett, A.L.,
"Technical Administrative Task Performance, Leadership
Performance and Contextual Performance: Considering the
Influence of Team and Task-Related Composition
Variables", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2002,
pp. 795-814.
[26] Jung, D.I., and Sosik, J.J., "Group Potency and
Collective Efficacy: Examining Their Predictive Validity,
Level of Analysis, and Effects of Performance Feedback on
Future Group Performance", Group & Organization
Management, 28(3), 2003, pp. 366-391.
[27] Bandura, A., Self Efficacy: The Exercise of
Control, Freeman, New York, NY, 1997.
[28] Latham, G.P., and Yukl, G.A., "A Review of
Research on the Application of Goal Setting in
Organizations", Academy of Management Journal,
18(1975, pp. 824-845.
[29] Locke, E.A., "Towards a Theory of Task
Motivation Incentives", Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 3(1968, pp. 157-189.
[30] Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., and Latham,
G.P., "Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969–1980",
Psychological Bulletin, 90(1981, pp. 125-152.
[31] Locke, E.A., and Latham, G.P., "Building a
Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Motivation", American Psychologist, 57(9), 2002, pp. 705717.
[32] Locke, E.A., and Latham, G.P., Theory of Goal
Setting and Task Performance, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1990.
for IS researchers interested in the complex process
of goal setting in virtual teams. We hope our research
will stimulate additional investigations in this respect.
8. References
[1] Wakefield, R.L., Leidner, D.E., and Garrison, G.,
"Research Note--a Model of Conflict, Leadership, and
Performance in Virtual Teams", Information Systems
Research, 19(4), 2008, pp. 434-455.
[2] Lipnack, J., and Stamps, J., Virtual Teams: People
Working across Boundaries with Technology, John Wiley
and Sons, New York, 2000.
[3] Duarte, D.L., and Snyder, N.T., Mastering Virtual
Teams: Strategies, Tools, and Techniques That Succeed,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2001.
[4] Espinosa, J.A., Cummings, J.N., Wilson, J.M., and
Pearce, B.M., "Team Boundary Issues across Multiple
Global Firms", Journal of Management Information
Systems, 19(2003, pp. 157-190.
[5] Fuller, M., Hardin, A., and Davison, R., "Efficacy in
Technology–Mediated Distributed Teams", Journal of
Management Information Systems, 23(3), 2007, pp. 221247.
[6] Piccoli, G., and Ives, B., "Trust and the Unintended
Effects of Behavioral Control in Virtual Teams", MIS
Quarterly, 27(3), 2003, pp. 365-395.
[7] Locke, E.A., and Latham, G.P., Goal Setting: A
Motivational Technique That Works!, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
[8] Kernan, M.C., and Lord, R.G., "An Application of
Control Theory to Understanding the Relationship between
Performance and Satisfaction", Human Performance,
4(1991, pp. 173-185.
[9] Anshel, M.H., Weinberg, R.S., and Jackson, A.,
"The Effect of Goal Difficulty and Task Complexity on
Intrinsic Motivation and Motor Performance.", Journal of
Sport Behaviour, 15(1992, pp. 159-176.
[10] Laporte, R., and Nath, R., "Role of Performance
Goals in Prose Learning", Journal of Educational
Psychology,, 68(1976, pp. 260-264.
[11] Brown, T., and Latham, G.P., "The Effects of Goal
Setting and Self-Instruction Training on the Performance of
Union Employees", Relations Industrielles/Industrial
Relations, 55(2000, pp. 80-91.
[12] Wegge, J., and Kleinbeck, U., "Goal-Setting and
Group Performance: Impact of Achievement and
Affiliation Motives, Participation in Goal-Setting, and Task
Interdependence of Group Members", in (T. Gjesme, R.N.,
'ed.' Advances in Motivation, Scandinavian University
Press, Oslo, 1996, pp. 145-177.
[13] Weldon, E., and Weingart, L.R., "Group Goals and
Group Performance", British Journal of Social Psychology,
32(1993, pp. 307-334.
[14] Whitney, K., "Improving Group Task
Performance: The Role of Group Goals and Task
Performance ", Human Performance, 7(1), 1994, pp. 55-78.
[15] Johnson, S.D., Suriya, C., Yoon, S.W., Berrett,
J.V., and Lafleur, J., "Team Development and Group
Processes of Virtual Learning Teams", Computers and
Education, 29(2002, pp. 379-393.
371
370
[33] Ryan, T.A., Intentional Behavior: An Approach to
Human Motivation, Ronald Press, New York, NY, 1970.
[34] Wood, R., Mento, A., and Locke, E., "Task
Complexity as a Moderator of Goal Effects", Journal of
Applied Psychology, 17(416-425), 1987,
[35] Hollenbeck, J.R., and Klein, H.J., "Goal
Commitment and the Goal Setting Process: Problems,
Prospects and Proposals for Future Research", Journal of
Applied Psycholology, 74(1987, pp. 18-23.
[36] Klein, H.J., Wesson, M.J., Hollenbeck, J.R., and
Alge, B.J., "Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting
Process: Conceptual Clarification and Empirical Synthesis
.", Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 1999, pp. 885896.
[37] Locke, E.A., and Latham, G.P., "New Directions
in Goal-Setting Theory", Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15(5), 2006, pp. 265-268.
[38] Hackman, R.J., "The Design of Work Teams", in
(Lorsch, J.W., 'ed.' Handbook of Organizational Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1987
[39] Hoegl, M., and Gemuenden, H.G., "Teamwork
Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: A
Theoretical
Concept
and
Empirical
Evidence",
Organization Science, 12(4), 2001, pp. 435-449.
[40] Wegge, J., "Participation in Group Goal Setting:
Some Novel Findings and a Comprehensive Model as a
New Ending to an Old Story", Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 49(3), 2000, pp. 498-516.
[41] Janz, B.D., "Self-Directed Teams in Is: Correlates
for Improved Systems Development and Work Outcomes",
Information and Management, 35(3), 1999, pp. 171-192.
[42] Manz, C.C., and Sims, H.P., "Self-Management as
a Substitute for Leadership: A Social Learning Theory
Perspective", Academy of Management Review, 5(3),
1980, pp. 361-367.
[43] Ashforth, B., and Mael, F., "Social Identity Theory
and the Organization", Academy of Management Review,
14(1), 1989, pp. 20-39.
[44] O'leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J.J., and Frink,
D.D., "A Review of the Influence of Group Goals on Group
Performance", Academy of Management Journal, 37(5),
1994, pp. 1285-1301.
[45] Gibson, C.B., and Earley, P.C., "Collective
Cognition in Action: Accumulation, Interaction,
Examination, and Accommodation in the Development and
Operation of Group Efficacy Beliefs in the Workplace",
The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 2007, pp.
438-458.
[46] Hardin, A., Fuller, M., and Valacich, J.,
"Measuring Group Efficacy in Virtual Teams: New
Questions in an Old Debate", Small Group Research, 37(1),
2006, pp. 65-85.
[47] De Jong, A., De Ruyter, K., and Wetzels, M.,
"Antecedents and Consequences of Group Potency: A
Study of Self-Managing Service Teams", Management
Science, 51(11), 2005, pp. 1610.
[48] Prussia, G.E., and Kinicki, A.J., "A Motivational
Investigation of Group Effectiveness Using SocialCognitive Theory", Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2),
1996, pp. 187-198.
[49] Bray, S.R., "Collective Efficacy, Group Goals, and
Group Performance of a Muscular Endurance Task", Small
Group Research, 35(2), 2004, pp. 203-238.
[50] Greenlees, J., Graydon, J., and Maynard, I., "The
Impact of Individual Efficacy Beliefs on Group Goal
Selection and Group Goal Commitment", Journal of Sports
Sciences, 18(2000, pp. 451-459.
[51] Mulvey, P., and Klein, H.J., "The Impact of
Perceived Loafing and Collective Efficacy on Group Goal
Processes and Group Performance", Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 1998, pp.
62-87.
[52] Bell, B.S., and Kozlowski, S.W., "A Typology of
Virtual Teams", Group & Organization Management,
27(1), 2002, pp. 14-49.
[53] Forester, G.L., Thoms, P., and Pinto, J.K.,
"Importance of Goal Setting in Virtual Project Teams",
Psychological Reports, 100(270-274), 2007,
[54] Hertel, G., Konradt, U., and Orlikowski, B.,
"Managing Distance by Interdependence: Goal Setting,
Task Interdependence, and Team-Based Rewards in Virtual
Teams", European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 13(1), 2004, pp. 1-28.
[55] Mcgrath, J.E., "Time, Interaction, and Performance
(Tip): A Theory of Groups", Small Group Research, 22(2),
1991, pp. 147-174.
[56] Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S., B., Lee, J.-Y., and
Podsakoff, N.P., "Common Method Biases in Behavioral
Research: A Crtical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies", Journal of
Applied
Psycholology, 88(5), 2003, pp. 879-903.
[57] Bandura, A., "Guide for Constructing SelfEfficacy Scales", in (Pajares, F., and Urdan, T., 'eds.'):
Adolescence and Education, Self-Efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents., Information Age Publishing, Greenwich,
2005, pp. 1-39.
[58] James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., and Wolf, G.,
"Estimating within-Group Interrater Reliability with and
without Response Bias", Journal of Applied Psychology,
69(1), 1984, pp. 85-98.
[59] Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J., and Kahai, S.S., "Effects
of Leadership Style and Anonymity on Group Potency and
Effectiveness in a Group Decision Support System
Environment", Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 1997,
pp. 89-103.
[60] Gefen, D., and Straub, D.W., "A Practical Guide to
Factorial Validity Using Pls-Graph: Tutorial and Annotated
Example", Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 16(2005, pp. 91-109.
[61] Baron, R.M., and Kenny, D.A., "The ModeratorMediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological
Research:
Conceptual,
Strategic,
and
Statistical
Considerations", Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 51(6), 1986, pp. 1173-1182.
[62] Shrout, P.E., and Bolger, N., "Mediation in
Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New
Procedures and Recommendations", Psychological
Methods, 7(4), 2002, pp. 422-445.
372
371