goal orientation, learning self-efficacy, and climate perceptions in a post-acquisition corporate...

Goal Orientation, Learning Self-Efficacy, and ClimatePerceptions in a Post-acquisitionCorporate Context

Denise Potosky

With the use of a repeated-measurement design over a five-year period, thisstudy examined the extent to which goal orientation and learning self-efficacyrelate to job performance in a post-acquisition corporate context. Results sug-gest that a learning goal orientation and self-efficacy beliefs regarding learningnew tasks do not necessarily lead to performance in a tumultuous, uncertainwork context. Employees with a learning orientation may be motivated to learnand capable of adapting to changing contexts, but they need to perceive super-visory support and an innovation policy that supports their efforts to learn andperform in a new organizational environment.

The need for employees to learn new tasks and adapt to change is animportant concern of human resource development (HRD). Understandingemployees’ predispositions to learn, their beliefs about their own capabilities,and their perceptions about the organizational climate for updating seems par-ticularly relevant to the design and implementation of HR programs. Individ-ual characteristics such as goal orientation and self-efficacy may help to explainwhy some employees not only meet job performance expectations, but alsoengage in behaviors that enable them to learn new skills and engage in updat-ing behaviors. In addition to continuous learning associated with job perfor-mance, many organizations require their employees to adapt to changing,sometimes tumultuous work environments. Yet, in a broader context of orga-nizational change or restructuring, climate perceptions may suffer. The link-ages described in the organizational and behavioral sciences literature betweenlearning orientation, self-efficacy beliefs, and job performance may be brokenif climate perceptions deteriorate. The present investigation offers some insightfor HRD practitioners and researchers focused on helping employees pursuelearning goals as they adapt to organizational changes.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 21, no. 3, Fall 2010 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.20047 273

274 Potosky

Using a repeated measurement over a five-year time period, this studyexamined goal orientation, learning self-efficacy, climate perceptions, and jobperformance in a post-acquisition corporate context. This article proceeds asfollows: First, a brief review of research on goal orientation and self-efficacy inrelation to learning and job performance is provided. Contextual moderatorsof this relationship, particularly organizational climate perceptions, are thendescribed. Next, goal orientation is discussed in terms of potential contribu-tion to employees’ adaptation to large-scale organizational change. Results, dis-cussed at the end, suggest that individual characteristics such as goalorientation and learning self-efficacy beliefs are most helpful when employeesperceive a supportive innovation policy and supervisory encouragement ofupdating behaviors.

Goal Orientation and Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Prior research that has focused on goal orientation and self-efficacy hasobserved that some individuals are better than others at meeting performancegoals and objectives, mastering new tasks, and learning new skills. Goal ori-entation refers to a person’s preferences and focus in achievement situations(Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007). Early conceptualization of goal ori-entation came from educational psychologists who observed that in classroomsettings, some students focused on learning to acquire knowledge and enlight-enment, whereas other students focused on obtaining a high grade (Eison,1981). Dweck and colleagues focused on achievement motivation among stu-dents and observed that some approached new tasks with a learning goal ori-entation (LGO), whereas other students approached tasks with the goal ofperforming in ways that either gained favorable judgments or avoided nega-tive judgments from others (Dweck, 1989). Subsequent research on goal ori-entation has suggested that the performance goal orientation (PGO) can besubdivided into approach performance goals, in which individuals attempt tooutperform others, and avoidance performance goals, in which individuals tryto avoid looking incompetent (Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Church, 1997; Middle-ton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997; Vandewalle, 1997; Vandewalle & Cummings, 1997). For example, Vandewalle and Cummings assessed a“prove” dimension of performance goal orientation (Prove PGO) described asthe desire to prove competence and gain favorable judgments, and an “avoid”dimension (Avoid PGO), described as the desire to avoid disproving compe-tence and negative judgments.

Relevant to HRD, several studies have considered goal orientation in rela-tion to job performance (e.g., Sujan, Weitz, & Kumar, 1994; Vandewalle,Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999), training performance (e.g., Hertenstein, 2001;Martocchio & Hertenstein, 2003), or task performance (e.g., Block et al., 1995;Davis, Mero, & Goodman, 2007; Mangos & Steele-Johnson, 2001). Most pre-vious research on goal orientation has suggested that a learning goal orientation

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

is positively associated with performance outcomes. For example, Phillips andGully (1997) reported a positive relationship between learning orientation and undergraduate students’ exam scores in their longitudinal field study. Intheir three studies of large samples of undergraduate students, Button et al.(1996) found positive relationships between learning orientation and gradepoint average. Martocchio and Hertenstein (2003) demonstrated that learninggoal orientation was positively related to declarative knowledge and posttrain-ing self-efficacy in a field study of trainees in a software training course. A meta-analysis by Payne et al. (2007) suggested that dispositional goal orientation—inparticular, learning goal orientation—is positively associated with many desir-able consequences and performance outcomes.

For the most part, goal orientation has been proposed as a relativelyenduring, trait-like disposition (Dweck, 1986, 1989; Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Pintrich, 2000). Notably, Payne et al. (2007) examinedthe temporal stability of dispositional goal orientation in their meta-analysisand reported sample weighted mean correlations of r � 0.66 for LGO, r � 0.70 for Prove PGO, and r � 0.73 for Avoid PGO for time intervals rang-ing from 1 to 14 weeks. Payne et al. also reported, however, that much lowercoefficients of stability may be expected over longer time frames betweenadministrations, but very few studies have incorporated repeated measuresdesigns that would provide test-retest estimates for goal orientation measures.Yet, it would be helpful to know if individuals’ goal orientations persist acrosschanging organizational contexts.

A few studies (e.g., Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Dweck, 1989) have treatedgoal orientation as situationally manipulable; Button et al. (1996) pointed outthat dispositional and situational aspects of goal orientation may coexist. Thatis, a person’s goal orientation predisposes his or her responses across situationsand/or when few situational cues are present, but individuals may adopt different response patterns in certain contexts (Button et al.; Farr, Hofmann, &Rigenbach, 1993). Martocchio and Hertenstein (2003) demonstrated thattraining contexts can induce response patterns that are consistent with learn-ing or performance orientations. In support of the Murtha, Kanfer, and Ackerman(1996) situational–dispositional hypothesis, Martocchio and Hertenstein foundthat situational factors amplified the hypothesized effects of dispositional goalorientation on learning outcomes when individuals’ dispositions and thedemands of the situation were consistent with each other. Specifically, in theirstudy posttraining self-efficacy was higher where learning goal orientation andthe induced goal orientation context were most similar, as compared with sit-uations in which individuals had a high learning goal orientation but the con-text called for a performance orientation.

Although some studies have considered the direct effects of goal orienta-tion on training, task, or job performance, several studies have implicated self-efficacy beliefs in the capability to perform a task. Self-efficacy beliefs refer toa person’s beliefs in the capability to perform a task (Bandura, 1982) and can

Goal Orientation, Learning Self-Efficacy, and Climate Perceptions 275


276 Potosky

be understood as a motivational mechanism regarding a person’s intentions toallocate effort to achieve targeted performance (Kanfer, 1987). Generalized self-efficacy refers to a person’s enduring belief that he or she is capable of perform-ing across a variety of situations and tasks (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001). Goalorientation and self-efficacy beliefs are related (Payne et al., 2007). Priorresearch has suggested that LGO positively influences the formation of gener-alized and task-specific self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Hertenstein, 2001; Phillips &Gully, 1997; Potosky & Ramakrishna, 2002; Steele-Johnson, Beauregard,Hoover, & Schmidt, 2000). As such, goal orientation, particularly LGO, rep-resents an antecedent to learning self-efficacy. Less research has examined PGOas an antecedent of self-efficacy beliefs. Overall, the fact that goal orientationis understood as an enduring trait suggests that it can influence individuals’self-efficacy beliefs.

Climate Perceptions as a Moderator Between GoalOrientation, Self-Efficacy, and Performance

A number of studies have examined the organizational context in which goalorientation and self-efficacy are most likely to matter. For example, incorporat-ing the work of Kozlowski and Farr (1988) and Murtha et al. (1996), Potoskyand Ramakrishna (2002) suggested that an organization that expects continu-ous learning from its employees should not only consider goal orientation andself-efficacy beliefs but also employees’ perceptions about the company’s cli-mate for updating. As noted above, Martocchio and Hertenstein (2003)reported an interaction between learning goal orientation and consistent ver-sus inconsistent contextual cues on posttraining self-efficacy. Hertenstein(2001) also examined the interplay between individual dispositions and train-ing design in predicting training outcomes. Steele-Johnson et al. (2000) exam-ined the contextual effects that may influence the relationship between goalorientation and performance. Davis et al. (2007) investigated effects associatedwith learning orientation, performance orientation, and avoidance orientationin three different conditions of accountability (none, process, outcome) oncomplex task performance. Their results showed that learning orientation wasnegatively related to performance improvement in one condition, and avoid-ance orientation was positively related to performance improvement in anothercondition. In explaining their results, Davis et al. suggested that individualswith a high learning orientation may experiment more in certain conditions,and such experimentation behaviors may have negatively impacted task performance. Taken together, what these studies suggest is that while goal orientation and self-efficacy are important individual characteristics, contextmatters, too.

Kozlowski and Farr (1988) recommended that research consider theinteraction between individual characteristics and perceived situational fea-tures of the environment when determining whether technical professionals


will voluntarily seek to learn new skills. As investigated by Potosky andRamakrishna (2002), perceptions relevant to a specific climate domain (suchas the innovation climate) have motivational implications on congruent behav-ioral outcomes (Schneider, 1983). Individuals’ perceptions regarding organi-zational support for learning may moderate the influence of dispositional goalorientation and self-efficacy on performance (Button et al., 1996).

Potosky and Ramakrishna (2002) explored the relationship between goalorientation, learning self-efficacy, and job performance in an information tech-nology (IT) work setting that demanded continuous learning of its employeeswithin broader IT and health care industry conditions of rapid change, com-plexity, and competition. In a field study of working professionals, theseauthors focused on the role of perceptions of the perceived climate for updat-ing behavior (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987) as a contextual factor that moderatedthe relationship between learning self-efficacy beliefs and job performance.Potosky and Ramakrishna argued that if employees do not perceive an innov-ative work context in which supervisors support updating behaviors or inwhich management enacts policies that reward updating and performance,learning goal orientation and self-efficacy may not translate into good perfor-mance. An organization that expects innovative behavior and updating activ-ities of its employees needs to have a perceived organizational climate that ischaracterized by intraorganizational communication, challenging job assign-ments, supportive management policies, and appropriate reward practices(Kanter, 1983; Kaufman, 1974).

Employees who experience organizational change (such as downsizing,restructuring, or corporate acquisition) must continue to perform their jobs.Indeed, one might surmise that the need to perform would be particularly salientunder such circumstances, despite the prevailing uncertainty as to work expecta-tions and norms. Part of the challenge for employees in this context is that theymust adapt to the new, more ambiguous work environment in which they per-form their jobs. And although perceptions regarding the climate for updating havebeen shown to moderate the LGO–self-efficacy–job performance relationshipwithin a stable organizational setting, the potential relevance of goal orientationand the effects of climate perceptions in a changing and uncertain organizationalsetting has not been thoroughly examined in the research literature.

Hypotheses

In Potosky and Ramakrishna’s study (2002), employees’ perceptions of the orga-nizational climate for updating moderated the relationship between goal orien-tation, self-efficacy, and job performance. In the context of an acquisition wheneveryone is trying to hold onto their jobs, overall climate perceptions can beexpected to be lower, and strong self-efficacy beliefs about learning new job-related tasks may be more important than ever. The present study examined therole of goal orientation in this context of change. In particular, this study



278 Potosky

explored whether the relationship between goal orientation, learning self-efficacyand performance, which has been demonstrated in prior research, would per-severe in a turbulent context. Further, this study aimed to take climate percep-tions into account when examining these relationships. The followinghypotheses were examined:

HYPOTHESIS 1: Goal orientation and learning self-efficacy are positively correlatedwith job performance in a post-acquisition, turbulent change situation.

HYPOTHESIS 2: Updating climate perceptions will moderate the effects of learningself-efficacy and goal orientation on job performance in a restructuring organiza-tional change context.

Method

Change Context. The present study examined goal orientation, self-efficacy,and performance in a longitudinal field study. The data for Potosky andRamakrishna (2002) were collected within a large, mature software develop-ment organization within the health care industry. At that time, no one sus-pected that this organization would be acquired by an even larger, diversified,international organization. Three years after the initial data collection, the hostorganization was acquired, and over a period of about 18 months the new par-ent organization began to reshape the structure and culture of the original soft-ware development company. Many of the information systems professionals(ISPs) originally surveyed left the organization to find new jobs as soon as theacquisition was announced. Many others, along with the management teamfrom the original software development company, were displaced after the newparent organization moved in. Just as the transition to the new organizationalsystem and culture was completed, the company agreed to survey as many ISPswho participated in the first survey as possible.

The changes that occurred during the investigation period for this studycan be considered second-order or gamma changes, which entail major alter-ations to established norms and procedures (Bartunek & Moch, 1987). Just asthe labor market for information technology (IT) workers loosened in responseto the dot-com bust, ISP jobs within the stable, 20-year-old software develop-ment organization were far from secure under the terms of the new acquisi-tion. The new parent organization did not seek to eliminate all software developmentjobs from the acquired organization, but new tasks and new ways of doing businesswere required. Physical characteristics, such as the location of the company, didnot change, although now for the first time corporate headquarters was some-place else and upper management consisted of leaders from another countryand culture. New social norms were needed to respond to the expectations ofthe new parent culture, yet few at the U.S. location were particularly familiarwith the parent company.


The situation for the ISPs investigated in this research changed dramati-cally from stable to uncertain, and it seems logical to wonder whether individ-uals with higher learning goal orientation were able to adapt and perform inthis new situation any better than ISPs with lower learning goal orientation.The present study provided an opportunity to explore whether goal orienta-tion would be correlated with job performance in the post-acquisition corpo-rate context.

Participants and Procedure. In 1998, 163 IT professionals employed by alarge U.S. software company that focused its products and services primarilywithin the health care industry were surveyed. In 2000, this company was fullyacquired by an even larger, multi-industry, international organization. Many ITprofessionals at the original company either left the company or were downsizedaccording to the new organization’s 2-year restructuring plan. In 2003, after therestructuring was completed, a survey was sent to as many of the original 163employees that could be located, and 52 individuals (32%) responded to thisfollow-up survey. A human resource manager at the company sent a cover letterand the survey, which included the measures described below, to all employeesidentified as participating in the first survey. Approximately four months aftercompleted surveys were returned, the most recent performance ratings for the52 respondents (to the second survey) were provided by the company. Respon-dents to the second survey were similar to those who responded to the first sur-vey. For example, the mean age of respondents at time 1 was 38, and the meanage for the 52 respondents 5 years later was 44 (SD � 8.51). In both 2000 and2005, 57% of the survey respondents were male. In order to determine furtherwhether the postmerger sample was significantly different from the premergersample, several characteristics of the group for which both time 1 and time 2data were available was compared with the group of “time 1 only” employees interms of job performance ratings, learning and performance goal orientation,learning self-efficacy, and climate perceptions. Tests for equality of variances (i.e.,folded F statistics) indicated that the variances of these measures for these twogroups were not significantly different (a� 0.05, two-tailed).

Measures. Goal orientation was assessed with two different sets of mea-sures. Two eight-item scales developed by Button et al. (1996) measured learn-ing orientation (a� 0.83) and performance orientation (a� 0.84). Three scalesdeveloped by Vandewalle (1997) were also administered to the time 2 sample.A four-item scale measured prove performance goal orientation (a � 0.76), afour-item scale measured avoid performance goal orientation (a � 0.86), anda five-item scale measured learning goal orientation (a � 0.88). Items for allgoal orientation measures were presented with a 7-point scale with responseoptions ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The internal reli-ability estimates obtained (see Table 1) were comparable to the correlationalphas typically reported for these measures.

Learning self-efficacy was assessed as beliefs associated with one’s abilityto learn and adapt in a high-tech organizational environment. This measure



Tab

le 1

. Des

crip

tive

Sta

tist

ics

and

Cor

rela

tion

s

Mea

nSD

a1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

1. L

earn

ing

self-

effic

acy

34.4

84.

990.

831

2. B

utto

n et

al.

LGO

46.2

94.

950.

830.

601

3. V

ande

wal

le L

GO

28.5

64.

300.

880.

520.

701

4. B

utto

n et

al.

PGO

38.6

27.

530.

84�

0.31

�0.

29�

0.48

15.

Van

dew

alle

Pro

ve19

.29

4.35

0.76

0.05

�0.

01�

0.10

0.39

16.

Van

dew

alle

Avo

id10

.88

4.98

0.86

�0.

36�

0.32

�0.

640.

540.

231

7. S

elf-

rate

d jo

b pe

rfor

man

ce93

.18

11.0

30.

870.

130.

280.

050.

190.

18�

0.03

18.

Sup

ervi

sor

rati

ng2.

270.

53–

0.08

�0.

080.

05�

0.08

0.10

�0.

07�

0.07

19.

Upd

atin

g cl

imat

e44

.14

9.75

0.89

0.13

0.20

0.05

�0.

030.

11�

0.15

0.18

�0.

091

10. U

pdat

ing

supp

ort

34.4

77.

110.

67�

0.10

�0.

18�

0.10

�0.

13�

0.14

�0.

04�

0.01

0.07

0.54

111

. Sup

ervi

sor

supp

ort

25.7

57.

690.

840.

09�

0.09

�0.

15�

0.11

0.08

0.07

0.28

�0.

050.

480.

581

12. I

nnov

atio

n po

licy

37.8

66.

970.

790.

050.

04�

0.03

�0.

09�

0.05

�0.

130.

14�

0.09

0.72

0.72

0.53

113

. Sex

0.58

0.50

–�

0.03

0.06

0.14

0.13

0.04

�0.

030.

040.

080.

090.

110.

11�

0.13

(1�

mal

e, 0

�fe

mal

e)

Not

e:N

�52

. Cor

rela

tion

s �

0.4

3 ar

e si

gnifi

cant

at

p�

0.00

1; c

orre

lati

ons

� 0

.28

are

sign

ifica

nt a

t p

�0.

05.

consisted of six items developed by the researchers that reflected participants’belief in their ability to learn new job-related tasks (a � 0.83). Similar in for-mat to items used in Potosky and Ramakrishna (2002) and Phillips and Gully(1997), these items were presented with a 7-point scale with response optionsranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Organizational climate for updating was assessed by subscales of the climate-for-updating measure developed by Farr, Dubin, Enscore, Kozlowski,and Cleveland (1983) and Kozlowski and Hults (1987). These subscalesassessed respondents’ perceptions about the contextual features of the organi-zation that facilitate or inhibit updating behaviors. Specifically, updating cli-mate perceptions include the extent to which peers communicate and fostercreativity, supervisors support and encourage updating, management enactspolicies that reward updating and performance, and the organization main-tains an innovative, state-of-the-art image (Kaufman, 1974; Kozlowski & Farr,1988). As such, scores on this measure represented each employee’s percep-tions of the psychological climate (cf. James & Jones, 1974) for updatingwithin the host organization.

The subscales included in the survey focused on overall updating climate(11 items, a � 0.89; e.g., “Innovation is enthusiastically received within theorganization”), innovation policy (10 items, a� 0.79; e.g., “Work assignmentsinclude state-of-the-art technology”), updating support (11 items, a� 0.67; e.g.,“My job allows some time to explore new, advanced ideas”), and supervisory sup-port (8 items, a� 0.84; e.g., “My supervisor matches the need for professionaldevelopment with opportunities to attend courses and technical meetings”).These scales were presented with 6-point response options ranging from 1 (avery inaccurate statement) to 6 (a very accurate statement). Items were unitweighted and summed to form a score for each set of climate perceptions. It isworth noting that although all study participants worked as IT professionals,they did not necessarily work together in this large organization.

Survey respondents were asked to complete a 16-item self-rated job per-formance measure (a � 0.87) presented on a 7-point response scale rangingfrom 1 (unsatisfactory), 4 (satisfactory), and 7 (excellent). Example items are “Mycommitment to my organization is. . .,” “My attendance for my job is. . .,” and“My ability to perform my job well is. . .”

Performance evaluation scores were obtained from company personnelrecords for each respondent. These single-item performance ratings pertainedto overall job performance evaluated by the immediate supervisor of eachemployee. According to the company, this rating reflected the supervisors’assessment of the employees’ job performance, goal attainment, and overall fit(in terms of behaviors) with the company.

Descriptive statistics and correlations between time 2 measures are shownin Table 1.



282 Potosky

Results

Although the sample size is relatively small, this investigation afforded theopportunity to compare learning and performance goal orientation assessedover an extended time period. Analyses of focal variables were conducted tounderstand how employees’ cognitions changed over the five-year time periodand how they interpreted the new organizational context in which they wereexpected to perform.

The correlation between time 1 and time 2 goal orientation as measuredby the Button et al. (1996) scale represents a test–retest reliability coefficient.The correlation between learning goal orientation assessed using this measureover 5 years was r � 0.48 (p � 0.001), and the correlation between perfor-mance goal orientation was r � 0.61 (p � 0.001). As anticipated by Payne et al. (2007), these coefficients of stability were lower than those reported forshorter intervals of time between repeated measurements. Yet, given theextended time period during which data were collected, these positive, signif-icant test–retest reliabilities for the Button et al. measure do not rule out thenotion that goal orientation represents an enduring individual characteristicsubject to situational or contextual influences.

As shown in Table 2, paired t-test results suggest that learning goal orien-tation declined somewhat from time 1 to time 2 (Mt1 � 47.85, SD � 5.90;Mt2 � 46.29, SD � 4.95; t � 2, p � 0.05). More interesting perhaps is the dra-matic drop observed in performance goal orientation (Mt1 � 42.64, SD � 6.84;Mt2 � 38.62, SD � 7.53; t � 4.53, p � 0.001). On average, learning goal ori-entation declined slightly, whereas performance goal orientation dropped mostsignificantly after the acquisition. Interestingly, learning self-efficacy beliefswere significantly greater, on average, at time 2 than they were at time 1 (pairedt � �9.54, p � 0.001).

Prior research has established a positive relationship between goal orien-tation and self-efficacy. Conceptually, goal orientation, as a disposition, shouldbe antecedent to self-efficacy, which should be more responsive to situationalcues. At time 2 in the follow-up study, learning goal orientation was significantlyand positively correlated with learning self-efficacy (r � 0.60, p � 0.001,Button et al., 1996, measure; r � 0.52, p � 0.001, Vandewalle, 1997, mea-sure). In addition, learning self-efficacy was significantly and negatively relatedto performance goal orientation (r � � 0.31, p � 0.05, Button et al., measure;r � � 0.36, p � 0.01, Avoid PGO from Vandewalle). However, learning self-efficacy was not significantly correlated with a Prove PGO (Vandewalle) in thecurrent sample (r � 0.05, ns).

Over the 5-year period during which the company was restructured, theperceptions of individuals who remained with the organization regarding the overall updating climate declined significantly (paired t � 3.50, p � 0.001,see Table 2). Perceptions of supervisory support also decreased significantly


Tab

le 2

. Tim

e 1

– T

ime

2 t-

test

Com

par

ison

s

T1

Mea

nT

1 SD

T2

Mea

nT

2 SD

Mea

n D

iffer

ence

SDPa

ired

-tdf

p

Lear

ning

Sel

f-E

ffica

cy28

.02

4.00

34.4

84.

99�

6.46

4.89

�9.

5451

�0.

001

Butt

on e

t al

. LG

O47

.85

5.90

46.2

94.

951.

565.

612.

0051

�0.

05Bu

tton

et

al. P

GO

42.6

46.

8438

.62

7.53

4.03

6.41

4.53

51�

0.00

1Se

lf-ra

ted

Job

Perf

.95

.66

8.15

93.1

811

.03

2.37

11.1

31.

5251

nsSu

perv

isor

Rat

ing

2.75

3.02

2.27

0.53

0.48

2.87

1.21

51ns

Upd

atin

g C

limat

e48

.57.

9544

.14

9.75

4.61

9.41

3.50

50�

0.00

1U

pdat

ing

Supp

ort

39.7

86.

7234

.47

7.11

5.35

8.07

4.73

50�

0.00

1Su

perv

isor

Sup

port

29.4

55.

5625

.75

7.69

3.66

7.42

3.52

50�

0.00

1In

nova

tion

Pol

icy

40.3

36.

4137

.86

6.97

2.63

8.33

2.26

50�

0.05

284 Potosky

(paired t � 3.52, p � 0.001), as did perceptions of the organization’s innovationpolicy (paired t � 2.26, p � 0.05). The largest difference in climate percep-tions from time 1 to time 2 appeared to be for updating support (paired t � 4.73,p � 0.001). Taken together, the changes on the updating climate subscalesfrom the pre-acquisition to post-acquisition environment clearly suggest thatthese IT professionals did not perceive the same emphasis on updating theirskills that was prevalent pre-acquisition.

Hypothesis 1: Goal Orientation, Learning Efficacy, and Job Performance,Post-acquisition. With regard to hypothesis 1, results suggest that goal orienta-tion was not significantly, directly correlated to job performance in the tumul-tuous post-acquisition context. Only one measure, the Button et al. (1996)learning goal orientation measure, was significantly correlated with self-rated per-formance (r � 0.28, p � 0.05), but not with supervisors’ performance ratings.

Contrary to the expectations of hypothesis 1, learning self-efficacy wasalso unrelated to the available performance measures. Perhaps learning self-efficacy beliefs reflected employees’ confidence in their own adaptiveness(hence greater learning efficacy scores at time 2 as compared with time 1), butthese beliefs did not help to determine their job performance. These resultsneed to be interpreted cautiously. It is possible that climate perceptions mod-erated the relationships between job performance, goal orientation, and learn-ing self-efficacy in the post-acquisition context.

Hypothesis 2: The Moderating Role of Updating Climate Perceptions.Hypothesis 2 anticipated that climate perceptions play a moderating role in therelationship between job performance, goal orientation, and learning self-efficacy beliefs. In order to examine climate as a potential moderator betweengoal orientation and job performance, following research conducted by Potoskyand Ramakrishna (2002), the sample was split on the basis of median updat-ing climate perceptions (i.e., for each of the four updating climate perceptionsubscales measured) and analyzed as two comparison groups. Self-rated jobperformance was regressed first on learning self-efficacy and next on learningself-efficacy and learning goal orientation for high versus low climate percep-tion subsets. For two perceived climate subsets, that is, the overall updatingclimate and the updating support subscales, regression models were not sig-nificant and R2 did not change. For two other climate subscales, however,results were different. Hierarchical regression analyses suggested that the rela-tionship between learning self-efficacy and self-rated job performance was sig-nificantly greater for individuals whose perceptions about supervisory support(R2 � 0.02 low, R2 � 0.34 high) as well as about innovation policy (R2 � 0.00low, R2 � 0.25 high) were above the median. When the Button et al. (1996)learning goal orientation measure was added to these models, R2 for the above-median subset increased to 0.55 for supervisory support climate perceptions and0.35 for innovation policy climate perceptions. Results for these two climate sub-scales suggest that certain climate perceptions may moderate the relationship


between learning self-efficacy and (self-rated) job performance in “gamma” changecontexts.

Discussion

All ships in a harbor go down when the tide goes out. The acquisition andrestructuring of the software development firm surveyed in this investigationrepresents the ebb of the tide for the company and its culture, and all of theindividual dispositions and perceptions assessed in this context were lowerthan they were during “high tide” 5 years earlier. The test–retest estimates ofgoal orientation under the Button et al. (1996) measure suggest that goal ori-entation is a relatively enduring individual characteristic, but one that may beresponsive to the situation in which it is assessed.The value of understandingemployees’ goal orientation in terms of predicting performance may be lowerwhen the context is uncertain or tumultuous. This is an important point forhuman resource development, since in practice efforts to select individualswho have a certain goal orientation or to encourage inherent characteristics to surface in various work arrangements may be quite different from efforts todevelop or change attitudes, motivational states, or skill sets.

As might be expected, climate perceptions change significantly from time1 to time 2 such that employees perceived the climate as less supportive afterthe acquisition. One surprising exception was learning self-efficacy, whichincreased at time 2 after the tumultuous change period. Perhaps learning self-efficacy beliefs reflected “surviving” employees’ enhanced confidence in theircapabilities to adapt and maintain their employment, notwithstanding specificjob performance expectations.

Overall, employees were changed by the organizational changes in thattheir goal orientation, beliefs, and perceptions were significantly different afterthe restructuring. However, these altered cognitions were not directly related tojob performance. This is an interesting question for future research thatexplores individual characteristics in context and in relation to situational cues.Neither goal orientation nor learning self-efficacy beliefs were significantlyrelated to supervisors’ ratings of performance, and only LGO measured usingButton et al.’s (1996) measure was positively correlated with self-rated job per-formance. Future research will need to consider the specific ways in whichemployees’ climate perceptions change in order to understand the relationshipbetween goal orientation, learning self-efficacy beliefs, and performance. Forexample, in this study, learning goal orientation and learning self-efficacy wererelated to self-rated job performance only for those employees who perceivedsupervisory support and a supportive innovation policy at time 2.

Limitations. There are several limitations associated with this investiga-tion. First, the sample size is small and is drawn from a single organization.Second, although the respondents for the time 2 survey appeared similar to



286 Potosky

those who could not be reached for the survey, it would be preferable to knowmore about what happened to them and the terms of their separation from thecompany. Third, the job performance ratings obtained from supervisors lackedsufficient variance and breadth of evaluation to be really useful in the analy-ses. Unfortunately, these were the only objective performance ratings available.It is difficult to interpret the unexpected lack of correlation between goal orientation and/or learning self-efficacy beliefs and either self-rated or supervisor-related performance. There were few other measured indices ofwhat performance was like in the restructured organizational setting. Forexample, performance appeared to be lower, on average, at time 2 than attime1, yet it is possible that the very definition of what comprised performancein this organization had changed over the time period examined. In additionto climate perceptions, it would be helpful to have other measures of contex-tual factors, situational cues, and job performance expectations.

Implications for Research and Practice. Despite its limitations, the pre-sent study provides some new insight into research questions about disposi-tional goal orientation regarding its stability over time, its correlates, and itsresponsiveness to contextual and climate changes. An important contributionof this research effort has been to extend the consideration of goal orientationas an individual characteristic relevant to adaptation to change. The repeated-measures data set is unique, and results should encourage future research onthe robustness of goal orientation across contexts.

In general, the model initially proposed by Potosky and Ramakrishna(2002) appeared to have explanatory value in the post-acquisition settingexamined in the present study. That is, when employees need to learn andadapt to organizational change, their perceptions about support for updatingbehaviors matter. In a post-acquisition context, it makes sense that employeesrely on their supervisors’ support for their learning efforts and their under-standing of the new organization’s innovation policy as they attempted to per-form their jobs. In this small sample, learning self-efficacy and a learning goalorientation predicted self-rated job performance for employees who perceiveda climate characterized by supervisory support for updating and those whoperceived a climate in which the overall organization had policies in place tosupport innovation and updating. Goal orientation and learning self-efficacywere less relevant to job performance for employees who did not feel sup-ported in this new uncertain situation.

Given that many organizations today face rapidly changing work environ-ments and tumultuous organizational change, human resource managers,development specialists, and organizational leaders might take comfort in thefact that the well-researched relationship between learning goal orientationand learning self-efficacy appears to endure across changing organizationalcontexts. At the same time, this study underscores the importance of the situational cues provided to employees regarding supervisory support for


innovation and the organization’s overall policy for skills updating. Humanresource development practitioners and organizational development special-ists who seek to help employees adapt to corporate changes may be interestedin these results. In particular, organizations need to update and effectively communicate their innovation policies and supervisors need to understandtheir important role in successfully leading employees through a changeperiod. Employees with a learning orientation may be motivated and capable ofadapting to changing contexts, but they need to perceive an organizational cli-mate that supports their efforts to learn and perform in a new organizationalenvironment.

Acknowledgments

It is with great appreciation and friendship that I acknowledge the contribu-tions of Hindupur Ramakrishna in the project design and data collectionphases of this research. I also thank the host organization and its HR directorfor their support of this work as well as the HRDQ editor, editorial staff, andanonymous reviewers for their constructive review and comments.

References

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,122–147.

Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change andorganizational development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied BehavioralScience, 23, 483–500.

Block, C. J., Roney, C. J. R., Geeter, J., Lopez, P. D., & Yang, T. (1995, August). The influence oflearning and performance-goal orientations on anxiety, motivation and performance on a complextask. Paper presented at the 55th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver,Canada.

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.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Orga-nizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83.

Davis, W. D., Mero, N., & Goodman, J. M. (2007). The interactive effects of goal orientation andaccountability on task performance. Human Performance, 20(1), 1–21.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork andsport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,1040–1048.

Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a psychologyof education (pp. 87–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personal-ity. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Eison, J. A. (1981). A new instrument for assessing students’ orientations towards grades andlearning. Psychological Reports, 48, 919–924.



288 Potosky

Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivations: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievementmotivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.

Farr, J. L., Dubin, S. S., Enscore, E. E., Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Cleveland, J. N. (1983). Relation-ships among individual motivation, work environment, and updating in engineers. Psycholog-ical Documents, 13, 16.

Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., & Rigenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal orientation and action control theory:Implications for industrial and organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & L. T. Robertson(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 193–231). NewYork: Wiley.

Hertenstein, E. J. (2001). Goal orientation and practice condition as predictors of training results.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 403–419.

James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psy-chological Bulletin, 81, 1096–1112.

Kanfer, R. (1987). Task-specific motivation: An integrative approach to issues of measurement,mechanisms, processes, and determinants. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 237–264.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovations for productivity in American corporations. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Kaufman, H. G. (1974). Obsolescence and professional career development. New York: AMACOM.Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Farr, J. L. (1988). An integrative model of updating and performance.

Human Performance, 1, 5–29.Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climates for technical updating and

performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539–563.Mangos, P. M., & Steele-Johnson, D. (2001). The role of subjective task complexity in goal ori-

entation, self-efficacy, and performance relations. Human Performance, 14, 169–186.Martocchio, J. J., & Hertenstein, E. J. (2003). Learning orientation and goal orientation context:

Relationships with cognitive and affective learning outcomes. Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 14(4), 413–434.

Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An under-explored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.

Murtha, T. C., Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Toward an interactionist taxonomy of per-sonality and situations: An integrative situational–dispositional representation of personalitytraits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 193–207.

Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, A. A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of thegoal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 128–150.

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, andlocus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,792–802.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learningand achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.

Potosky, D., & Ramakrishna, H. V. (2002). The moderating role of updating climate perceptionsin the relationship between goal orientation, self-efficacy, and job performance. Human Perfor-mance, 15(3), 275–297.

Schneider, B. (1983). Work climates: An interactionist perspective. In N. W. Feimer & E. S. Geller(Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (pp. 106–128). New York: Praeger.

Skaalvik, E. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task avoid-ance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 71–81.


Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R. S., Hoover, P. B., & Schmidt, A. M. (2000). Goal orientationand task demand effects on motivation, affect, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,85, 724–738.

Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effectiveselling. Journal of Marketing, 58, 39–52.

Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instru-ment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995–1015.

Vandewalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1999). The influence of goal ori-entation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 84, 249–259.

Vandewalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390–400.

Denise Potosky, professor of management and organization, is with the Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies at The Pennsylvania State University.

