Journal of Management

Vol. 41 No. 3, March 2015 957–986

DOI: 10.1177/0149206312443558
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Motivating Organizations to Learn:

Goal Orientation and Its Influence
on Organizational Learning
Ingrid C. Chadwick
Jana L. Raver
Queen’s University

Organizations must learn and adapt to succeed in today’s ever-changing business environment,
so it is essential for scholars to better understand the antecedents to learning processes among
individuals, teams, and organizations as a whole. In this article, the authors offer a multilevel
theory that illustrates how individuals’ motivation for different achievement goals, that is, goal
orientations, shape the way they individually and collectively participate in organizational
learning processes. This framework is grounded in a theoretical synthesis of organizational
learning and achievement goal theories, which highlights the value of using an emergent moti-
vational theory to better understand how predominantly cognitive learning processes may
emerge across levels in organizations. In particular, the authors illustrate how mastery- and
performance-oriented norms emerge in work groups and influence information interpretation
and integration. The authors further describe how groups’ goal orientation norms can become
embedded in the organizational culture, which impacts the ways in which learning processes are
institutionalized throughout the organization. This theoretical framework provides a fuller
depiction of why and how learning unfolds in organizations, which may facilitate future
research on the microfoundations of organizational learning and how these can enable organi-
zations to enhance their capabilities.

Keywords:  goal orientation; organizational learning; emergence; multilevel

Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Deborah E. Rupp.

Corresponding author: Ingrid C. Chadwick, Queen’s University, Queen’s School of Business, Goodes Hall,
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada.
E-mail: [email protected]
957
958    Journal of Management / March 2015

Learning is a necessity for organizations to remain adaptive and competitive in today’s

ever-changing business environment (Edmondson, 2008; McGrath, 2001). Understanding
the antecedents to organizational learning thus continues to be an important topic of interest
to scholars across research fields (Antonacopoulou, 2006; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Lipshitz,
Popper, & Friedman, 2002). While organizational learning theorists have generally adopted
a cognitive approach to answer the important questions of why and how organizations are
able to learn, such as by examining the interpretation of information and cognitive
representations of knowledge (e.g., Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Hayes & Allinson,
1998; Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997), there is much to be gained from applying a
motivational approach to this area of inquiry (e.g., Adler & Kwon, 2002; Kang, Morris, &
Snell, 2007). That is, knowledge and ability are of little value to organizations if the holders
of such resources are not motivated to apply them in ways that benefit the organization as a
whole. The organizational learning literature accordingly requires greater attention to the
motivational dimension to better depict why certain individuals, groups, and organizations
are more (or less) prone to learn, despite their similar skill sets.
One motivational theory of particular relevance to the study of organizational learning is
achievement goal theory (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Achievement goal theory
proposes that individuals have motivational tendencies to pursue different goals based on
their underlying beliefs, and these goal orientations (GOs) in turn influence how they
approach, interpret, and respond to situations and challenges (Chen & Mathieu, 2008;
Dweck, 2000). The GO construct includes a mastery orientation aimed at pursuing growth
and a performance orientation aimed at either demonstrating competence (i.e., performance-
approach) or avoiding demonstrating incompetence (i.e., performance-avoid). Achievement
goal theory has received widespread support in social, organizational, educational, and
sports psychology for its ability to predict behaviors in achievement situations (e.g.,
Covington, 2000; Duda & Hall, 2001; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007; Pintrich,
Conley, & Kempler, 2003; Utman, 1997; VandeWalle, 2003). Organizational theorists have
also begun to illustrate that GO operates as a collective construct (e.g., in work units) with
important influences on team- and organization-level outcomes (Bunderson & Sutcliffe,
2003; Dragoni, 2005; Porter, 2008). Despite these promising findings, GO has been studied
mainly in relation to team performance and has been only peripherally linked to learning
processes. Considering how GO plays a central role in how individuals, groups, and
organizations behave when faced with growth opportunities (Porter, 2008), GO cannot be
properly understood in an organizational context without an integration of organizational
learning scholarship. We propose that the time is ripe for situating GO within an
organizational learning framework to illuminate how individuals’ motivational tendencies
may emerge and influence learning processes at higher levels of analysis within organizations.
Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to propose a multilevel theoretical synthesis of
organizational learning and achievement goal theories to provide a fuller depiction of why
and how learning unfolds in organizations. Individuals’ GOs motivate them to handle
achievement situations in ways that can encourage or deter their development; studying this
motivation in combination with multilevel organizational learning theory can elucidate how
such learning emerges from a motivational perspective. Our theory highlights the
microfoundations and dynamics of organizational learning, which presents a complementary
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   959

viewpoint to the macro-organizational approach that is more prevalent within the

organizational learning literature (e.g., Felin & Foss, 2005; Selznick, 1996). We begin by
illustrating how individuals’ GOs emerge to create shared organizational realities in the
form of group norms and organizational cultures that either promote or discourage
employees’ participation in learning activities. We then provide theoretical grounding for
relationships between GO and learning processes across levels of analysis, and we offer
answers to the questions of why some employees and work groups actively seek out
learning opportunities in their work experiences while others actively avoid such
opportunities. We also describe several contingencies that may alter the ways in which
collective GO emerges. Overall, this emergent theory can provide strategies for how
organizations should hire, position, and support their employees to ensure their long-term
learning capabilities necessary for organizational survival. We begin with a brief review of
the relevant literature on organizational learning and achievement goal theory before turning
to a discussion of the nature of the GO construct across levels and how it can help explain
organizational learning processes.

Theoretical and Research Background

Organizational Learning

Organizational learning remains a popular topic among organizational scholars (Argyris

& Schön, 1978; Bapuji & Crossan, 2004; Schein, 1993). Despite some definitional
inconsistencies, organizational learning is most commonly viewed as the process of
improving organizational actions through better knowledge and understanding or as the
outcome of such processes (Edmondson, 2002; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Huber, 1991; Levitt &
March, 1988). As identified by March (1991), this higher level learning is typically
conceptualized as involving a tension between the exploration of new learning and the
exploitation of what has already been learned. These fundamentally different logics compete
for organizations’ scarce resources, and as such, it has been argued that theories of
organizational learning must incorporate both dimensions for a complete representation of
the phenomenon (Crossan et al., 1999). To do so, organizational researchers have commonly
used the following constructs to study the distinction between exploration and exploitation,
respectively: double-loop versus single-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978), innovation
versus efficiency, and change versus continuity, each of which promotes diverse consequences
for organizational performance (He & Wong, 2004).
Organizational learning scholarship has made extensive efforts to differentiate learning at
the organizational versus individual levels (e.g., Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Miner & Mezias, 1996).
This distinction has lead to complementary yet disconnected pictures of what constitutes
learning in organizations (Edmondson, 2002). While the origins of learning at the
organizational level are studied largely based on macrolevel constructs, such as supportive
structures, and routines that foster collective learning (e.g., James, 2002; Senge, 1990), a few
theories have depicted organizational learning as emerging through sequential processes that
occur at different levels of analysis (e.g., Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003; Huber, 1991;
960    Journal of Management / March 2015

Zollo & Winter, 2002). In particular, Crossan et al. (1999) proposed an influential multilevel
theory of organizational learning that links individuals, groups, and the organization based
upon four social and psychological processes: (a) intuiting, (b) interpreting, (c) integrating,
and (d) institutionalizing. Intuiting is defined as “the preconscious recognition of the pattern
and/or possibilities inherent in a personal stream of experience” (Weick, 1995: 25) and
occurs at the individual level. Interpreting is the process of explaining a new idea to one’s
self and to others through words or actions, which can occur at both the individual and group
levels. Integrating is the process through which a shared understanding is developed among
individuals and coordinated action is taken through mutual adjustment, and this process
takes place at the group and organizational levels. The last process, institutionalizing, occurs
at the organizational level when routinized actions transpire or become part of the taken-for-
granted patterns. Together, these processes inform each other and flow sequentially to lead
to organizational learning, thereby providing a theoretical foundation for studying the
emergence of such learning across levels.
Despite Crossan et al.’s (1999) multilevel framework, research has rarely focused on how
organizational learning emerges from individuals to groups to organizations (see Edmondson,
2002; Felin & Foss, 2005). As an exception, recent research by Kostopoulos, Spanos, and
Prastacos (2011) offers support for part of this framework by validating how learning
emerges from the cognitions of individuals to become a group property. In addition, a few
studies have addressed how leaders’ individual cognitive representations, hierarchical
positions, and work experiences influence collective learning (e.g., Cho & Hambrick, 2006;
Gavetti, 2005; Heimeriks & Duysters, 2007). However, the motivational foundation for these
individual differences remains less clear, as does the influence of nonsupervisory employees’
motivational choices. For example, what triggers individuals, groups, and organizations to
want to learn together from a bottom-up perspective? Likewise, what characteristics motivate
individuals to create learning-focused environments? Motivation greatly influences how
individuals, groups, and organizations approach potential learning situations, and organizational
learning theories accordingly need a motivational dimension for a full depiction of how this
phenomenon transpires (see Kang et al., 2007). As a result, we argue that motivational
perspectives in general and achievement goal theory in particular need to be situated in the
study of organizational learning.

Achievement Goal Theory

Achievement goal theory is a social cognitive approach to motivation that proposes that
individuals adopt different GOs in line with their underlying beliefs about ability (e.g.,
Covington, 2000; Dweck, 1986; Pintrich et al., 2003). GO represents “the nature of the
desires and reactions of an individual, group, or organization in an achievement context”
(Porter, 2008: 150), and as such, it influences how individuals—alone or in the collective—
approach, interpret, and respond to situations and challenges (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac,
1996; Poortvliet, Janssen, Van Yperen, & Van de Vliert, 2007). Individuals who believe
ability is fixed and cannot be increased through effort tend to adopt a performance GO,
which makes them focus on demonstrating their competence (or lack of incompetence). In
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   961

contrast, individuals who believe ability is dynamic and amenable to improvement through
effort adopt a mastery GO (Dweck, 1975, 1986), which makes them aim to achieve by
expanding their competencies.1
The study of GO has its foundation in social and educational psychology (Diener &
Dweck, 1978; Dweck, 1975, 1986), yet it has been integrated into organizational studies
since the 1990s (Farr, Hofmann, & Ringenbach, 1993). This research has consistently
supported the value of a mastery GO (Payne et al., 2007), which is positively associated with
the successful acquisition of new skills (Kozlowski, Gully, Brown, Salas, Smith, & Nason,
2001) and a high intrinsic motivation to succeed (Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999). Research on
performance GO has generally revealed less desirable effects; however, the pattern of
results was initially inconsistent (e.g., Elliot, 1999; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007), leading
scholars to argue that GO is better conceptualized as a three-factor construct by splitting
performance GO into performance-approach GO and performance-avoid GO (Elliot &
Church, 1997; Pintrich et al., 2003). The distinction between these subdivisions is that in
the former individuals seek favorable judgments, while in the latter individuals strive to
avoid negative judgments about their performance (Brett & VandeWalle, 1999). This
subdivision of performance GO has shown good promise for resolving inconsistencies
(Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999), where results strongly suggest that performance-avoid GO is
associated with negative outcomes such as low efficacy, anxiety, and self-handicapping
strategies (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Porath & Bateman,
2006; Urdan, Ryan, Anderman, & Gheen, 2002). In contrast, performance-approach GO is
positively associated with task success under circumstances where the tasks fit one’s current
skill set (Elliot & Dweck, 1988) and where individuals do not feel threatened (Middleton,
Kaplan, & Midgley, 2004).
The conceptualization of the GO construct as a trait versus a state has been greatly
debated. Although many organizational researchers have studied GO as an individual
difference (Porter, 2008), research has provided evidence for the important role that the
environment plays in making mastery and performance GOs more or less salient (Ames &
Archer, 1988; Button et al., 1996; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). Meta-analytic evidence by
Payne et al. (2007) reveals that GO can indeed be both a state and a trait, similar to other
psychological variables such as self-esteem. In line with this evidence, GO is now
conceptualized as a relatively stable motivational tendency, a quasi-trait, where individuals
can have both chronic and temporary access to different types of GO (e.g., Chen &
Mathieu, 2008). Moreover, while the types of GO were originally conceptualized as different
ends of the same continuum, they are now believed to be orthogonal dimensions (e.g.,
Button et al., 1996; Payne et al., 2007).

The Emergence of Collective Goal Orientations

Given the potential for advancing scholarship through a synthesis of achievement goal
theory and organizational learning scholarship, we propose a multilevel theoretical
framework that illustrates how collective GOs emerge and influence organizational learning
processes. The relationships of interest are synthesized in Figure 1. In the following section,
962    Journal of Management / March 2015

Figure 1
Framework for the Emergence of Goal Orientation
and Its Influence on Organizational Learning

we begin with a description of how GO emerges from the individual to the group and to the
organizational levels of analysis. This multilevel emergence of GO thus becomes the
foundation of our theory, which we link to learning processes in subsequent sections.
However, it is important to note that while we initially treat this emergence as a simple
isomorphic process (i.e., GO is structurally similar at the individual and collective levels;
Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999), we later include a discussion of
contextual contingencies that can disrupt this process.

Emergence of Goal Orientation From the Individual to the Group Level

The conceptualization of GO at the individual level as a relatively stable motivational

tendency has been widely addressed (e.g., Button et al., 1996; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004;
Pintrich et al., 2003). Although GO has been conceptualized as a distinct group-level
phenomenon—that is, a group-level construct that influences group outcomes (LePine,
2005; Porter, 2005), group norms (Gully & Phillips, 2005), and shared perceptions (Porter,
2008)—there has been less attention to explaining its nature and emergence. Therefore, we
first describe the nature of GO at the group level and then introduce three mechanisms that
we propose will lead individual GOs to emerge as a distinct collective construct: (a) social
information processing, (b) social verification processes, and (c) attraction, selection, and
attrition (ASA) processes.
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   963

Collective GO manifests as a shared perception of the appropriate way to behave in group

achievement contexts; as such, we argue that GO is best conceptualized as a behavioral norm
at the group level. Group norms are standards for appropriate behavior that develop through
interactions among group members and are informally agreed upon (Cialdini & Trost,
1998; Raven & Rubin, 1976). Norms are shared among members and become a core part
of the group’s identity (Turner, 1991), and because they reduce ambiguity, they allow
members to predict each other’s behavior (Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997). These norms can be
either descriptive (i.e., how people typically behave in a given situation) or injunctive (i.e.,
how people ought or ought not behave in a given situation; Forsyth, 2006), but both types
provide standards that guide members toward appropriate behaviors in that context. This
conceptualization of group GO as shared perceptions of group norms is consistent with what
multilevel theorists have described as a shared (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) or referent-shift
consensus (Chan, 1998) construct.
With regard to the nature of each dimension of group GO, we propose that mastery norms
encourage members to approach achievement settings as opportunities for increasing the
group’s competence, thereby promoting behaviors such as feedback seeking, high levels of
task-related discussion, and risk taking (i.e., experimentation of new ways of developing
knowledge rather than carelessness), coupled with a high tolerance for immediate setbacks
so long as they lead to long-term improvements. In contrast, we argue that performance-
approach norms encourage members to approach achievement settings as opportunities to
prove the group’s competence, thereby encouraging members to put in high levels of effort
on the current task, engage in impression management activities (e.g., only seek feedback
with outsiders when they are performing well), and be intolerant of anything that reduces
task focus. Finally, we propose that performance-avoid norms encourage members to
approach achievement settings as potential threats that can expose incompetence, which
produces risk-aversive behaviors such as secrecy about mistakes as well as the avoidance of
criticism.
With this conceptualization of collective GO in place, we now draw from three theoretical
perspectives to develop propositions for the ways in which such norms emerge from the
individual to the group level. That is, while each person brings his or her personal preferences
and beliefs regarding the appropriate way to approach achievement situations, social-
psychological theory and research have demonstrated that groups quickly establish norms at
initial group formation that limit the range of permissible behaviors (Sherif, 1936). The first
mechanism through which groups may establish shared GO norms is through social
information processing (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Social information processing theory is
based on the premise that individuals are adaptive organisms who adjust their attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviors to the social context. As groups are formed within a shared social
environment, therefore, members begin to collectively evaluate and interpret cues around
them in ways that convince them that only certain types of behaviors are acceptable within
the context. In line with this theory, we contend that group members’ shared exposure to the
same group environment can create a new group reality that is distinct from the simple
summation of their individual propensities. Over time, this new reality guides group
members toward drawing similar conclusions about how to approach and interpret their
work experiences with a focus on learning or performance. For example, if group members
964    Journal of Management / March 2015

develop an innovative product that ultimately fails on the market, their shared exposure to this
incident will help to determine whether the group views such incidents as valuable experiences
from which to grow (i.e., group mastery GO) or as a demonstration of incompetence (i.e.,
group performance-avoid GO), which then guides future behavior. In support of our
proposition, Dragoni (2005) has theorized that a group’s climate signals to its members which
GO to prefer, and correspondingly, research by Ames and Archer (1988) and Turner et al.
(2002) suggests that group members’ perceptions of situational cues in the social environment
can influence the type of GO they adopt in the context of that group.
Second, we theorize that social verification processes will encourage group members to
further converge in their behaviors as they make sense of their preferences regarding
achievement behaviors. Hardin and Higgins (1996) describe social verification as involving
discussions to establish mutually agreed upon interpretations of the “right” way to behave
during group development. They argue that groups create and maintain a shared group
reality through such social verification processes; this shared reality provides meaning to
group members that in turn functions to regulate their behaviors. Similarly, scholarship on
social norms indicates that individuals tend to revise their idiosyncratic views and approaches
as they gain information about others’ behaviors through initial group interactions (Cialdini,
2007; Cialdini, Bator, & Guadagno, 1999). We accordingly propose that group members
engage in social verification processes early in the life of their group to develop implicit
standards for appropriate and inappropriate ways to behave in achievement situations,
thereby facilitating the creation of shared GO norms. For example, if a group is dominated
by people with high performance-avoid GO, early group discussions may gravitate toward
agreeing to avoid uncertain situations and ridiculing those who expose weaknesses. An
individual who seeks out challenging and uncertain tasks soon learns that this is undesirable
behavior that provokes sanctioning, and he or she begins to comply with the other members’
preferences. Correspondingly, research by Bunderson and Sutcliffe (2003) illustrates that
members of established management teams who are expected to consult each other about
critical events in the environment have a tendency to agree on the extent to which their team
prefers a mastery GO.
Finally, we propose that the emergence of a collective GO at the group level is further
reinforced by the composition of the group such that individuals are attracted to and selected
by work groups composed of people who are similar to themselves. This proposition
emerges from Schneider’s (1987) ASA theory, which predicts that group norms are
developed, at least in part, as a function of the personalities of the people who make up the
group (see also Ployhart & Schmitt, 2008). In short, ASA expects groups to become more
homogeneous in their preferences over time. Applying this theory to GO, we contend that a
group that has established performance-approach GO norms through early social verification
and social information processes will have these tendencies further reinforced by attracting
and retaining highly performance-approach-oriented members. Moreover, ASA suggests
that individuals who join a group and then realize they are dissimilar (e.g., in achievement
preferences) tend to either conform to the expected normative behaviors or leave (Schneider,
1987). Thus, we argue that group members tend to prefer similar approaches to achievement
settings over time, which further facilitates the enforcement of group GO norms. A few studies
have begun to explore this homogeneity hypothesis at the group level, providing evidence
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   965

that occupational groups and organizations can be distinguished from each other on the basis
of unit average personality (e.g., Ployhart, Weekley, & Baughman, 2006). In relation to GO
specifically, Van Vianen (2000) tested parts of ASA and found that new hires had lower
turnover intentions when they shared high concern for goal achievement (such as reward and
competition) with their peers.

Proposition 1: Groups develop collective goal orientations that manifest as mastery, performance-
approach, or performance-avoid norms due to (a) social information processing, (b) social
verification processes, and (c) attraction-selection-attrition.

Emergence of Goal Orientation From the Group to the Organizational Level

At the organizational level, collective GO manifests as a shared perception of assumptions,

values, and practices that communicate the organization’s approach to achievement
situations; as such, we propose that GO emerges as part of the organizational culture.
Organizational culture is generally agreed to be a socially constructed context that generates
meaning and shared sensemaking for its members (e.g., Denison, 1996; Ostroff, Kinicki, &
Tamkins, 2003; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). Specifically, culture is defined as

a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external
adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation
to those problems. (Schein, 1992: 12)

One of the basic underlying assumptions around which cultural paradigms form is the nature
of human activity, or what is considered the “right way” for humans to act in response to
work and achievement (Schein, 1992). People in organizations develop shared assumptions
regarding the nature of human activity that reflect different orientations toward work (active
vs. passive), which are based on beliefs about the possibility of being able to influence one’s
environment. This is parallel to achievement goal theory’s different orientations toward
achievement situations (learning vs. performance), which are based on beliefs about ability.
In prior research, achievement has thus been classified as an important part of culture (e.g.,
individuals tend to prefer cultures consistent with their achievement needs; O’Reilly,
Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991), indicating that employees’ shared achievement values can
predict organizational behaviors and outcomes.
By conceptualizing collective GO as a part of the culture at the organizational level, we
theorize that the emergence of this construct from the group to the organizational level
transpires through processes of shared experiences and retrospective interpreting over time,
in line with Schein’s (1992) definition of culture discussed above. Multilevel theory suggests
that the manner in which lower level properties emerge to form collective phenomena at
increasingly higher levels will differ as a function of the nature of the organizational units
and the different contextual factors involved (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Therefore, the
processes of GO emergence from the individual to the group level that stem from individuals’
interactions within their group will differ from the processes of GO emergence from the
966    Journal of Management / March 2015

group to the organizational level, which are based on intergroup interactions across a
broader organizational context. The development of a shared reality arising from these
within-group versus intergroup interactions thus requires attention to different theoretical
mechanisms of emergence.
In particular, as organizations succeed and increase in size and structural complexity over
time, they grow from a small group context to an organizational structure consisting of
several interdependent groups, units, or departments. This increased structural complexity
creates intergroup coordination challenges as different groups are forced to interact across
the broader organizational setting. However, Schein (1990) argues that certain local group
norms and practices will eventually be interpreted to be the most successful approach to
pursuing achievement, which reinforces the notion that it is the best way for the organization
to behave (i.e., a culture is formed). In other words, intergroup interactions eventually lead
even diverse groups to develop similar interpretations about what constitutes appropriate
behaviors as they share experiences of success and failure over time. Moreover, critical
stakeholders of the organization tend to gain influence over the collective sensemaking
processes that take place in response to these events and will encourage groups to converge
in their perceptions of the best organizational way for allocating effort and attention (Gully
& Phillips, 2005). Organizational founders, as well as visible and powerful leaders, have an
initial and continuing influence on the culture that emerges in a top-down fashion through
their actions, including what they pay attention to, how they react, what behaviors they
model, and what they reward and recognize (Schein, 1990). These stakeholders become role
models for organizational groups seeking structure and order as they interact with other
groups across different local contexts in the organization. In a longitudinal study of
organizational responses to threats to their identity, Ravasi and Schultz (2006) provide
support for this such that leaders use organizational culture as a platform for sensegiving
actions aimed at shaping the interpretations of others.

Proposition 2: Organizations develop collective goal orientations that manifest as mastery,

performance-approach, or performance-avoid cultures due to shared experiences and retrospective
interpretations of the right way to approach achievement.

The organizational culture manifests itself in artifacts such as symbols and rituals that
reinforce the pursuit of culturally appropriate behaviors and practices (Denison, 1996;
Schein, 1990, 1992). These manifestations of culture are visible also in the organizational
climate, which includes shared perceptions of the policies, procedures, and practices that
communicate to employees what behaviors are rewarded, supported, and expected
(Schneider, 1990; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Thus, organizational climate more overtly
promotes certain behaviors, whereas the norms we discussed at the group level create social
control “without the force of laws” (Cialdini & Trost, 1998: 152). In particular, we propose
that manifestations of a highly mastery-oriented organizational culture include reward
systems that encourage experimentation and idea generation, as well as hiring practices that
emphasize long-term growth potential. In contrast, we predict that a culture that is highly
performance approach oriented is reflected in competitive reward systems that celebrate
only “winners” and promotions based solely on past performance (vs. growth potential).
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   967

Finally, cultural artifacts consistent with a strongly performance-avoid-oriented culture

include performance management systems that publicly reveal both top and bottom
performers as a means to motivate the “losers” and the use of dismissal as a strategy for
avoiding errors. Evidence suggests that employees who are immersed in different types of
cultures start to identify and comply with the expected and rewarded behaviors and see them
as a central part of their organizational identity (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). For example, Pratt
and Rafaeli (1997) found that organizational symbols, such as dress codes, represent core
values and beliefs of its members about who they are and what their work entails.

Proposition 3: Organizational goal orientations become visible in manifestations of culture

including symbols and organizational policies, practices, and procedures that encourage
mastery, performance-approach, or performance-avoid orientations.

Once an organizational culture has been formed, it provides meaning and stability to its
members (Schein, 1990). However, we note that there may also be subgroup variation (e.g.,
between departments) in the extent to which members agree about cultural values and
assumptions (e.g., Alvesson, 2002; Martin, Frost, & O’Neil, 2006). In organizations with
fragmented or weak cultures (Martin, 2002), there will be greater between-group variation
in the cultural values and assumptions as well as in the cultural artifacts and norms pertaining
to GO.

Goal Orientation and Processes of Organizational Learning

We now turn our attention to how our proposed multilevel conceptualizations of GO

influence organizational learning processes. As can be seen in Figure 1, we use Crossan et al.’s
(1999) multilevel framework of learning processes that link individuals, groups, and
organization levels to outline how GO influences the relevant learning processes of intuiting,
interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing for organizational learning to transpire.

Individual Goal Orientation and Individual Learning Processes

We first propose that individuals’ GOs will influence the ways in which they approach
the individual learning processes of intuiting and interpreting. As noted above, intuiting
involves the subconscious recognition of patterns and possibilities and is a first step toward
developing new insights (Crossan et al., 1999). For example, a medical researcher exercises
an intuitive process when she analyzes experimental results to try to discover new
connections between symptoms of a disease. Interpreting is the process of refining and
developing these intuitive insights through the development of cognitive maps, such that
initial insights lead to possible explanations and understanding. Both of these learning
processes can be useful for generating either explorative or exploitative learning (Crossan
et al., 1999).
A mastery GO will motivate individuals to intuit and interpret their experiences in ways
that generate new knowledge because these individuals believe that they can achieve by
968    Journal of Management / March 2015

expanding their competencies through effort. These beliefs elicit proactive learning
behaviors that support explorative learning processes aimed at continuous growth and
learning. Research suggests highly mastery-oriented individuals thrive on challenges and are
not afraid of making mistakes, as they see the value of these for learning in the long run
(Elliott & Dweck, 1988); consequently, individuals’ mastery GO has been linked to
explorative behaviors including feedback seeking, creativity, and risk taking (e.g., Gong,
Hung, & Farh, 2009; Dweck, 1986; VandeWalle, 2003). Accordingly, we propose that highly
mastery-oriented individuals will perceive new patterns and refine these insights in ways
that prioritize exploratory learning.
A performance-approach GO will also motivate individuals to intuit and interpret their
experiences, but we argue that these learning processes will be more exploitative than
explorative in nature. Individuals with a strong performance-approach GO more strongly
endorse the belief that their ability is predetermined (VandeWalle, 2001), and they are
consequently motivated to perform in ways that make them appear competent regardless of
actual skill improvements (e.g., Hirst, van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009). These individuals
may engage in some learning activities if that is necessary to demonstrate competence or to
outperform others (e.g., Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997), yet their learning
behaviors will likely consist of the exploitation of previous learning (such as the refinement of
ideas for existing environmental demands) that leads to quick performance results rather than
the exploration of new knowledge necessary for higher levels of performance in the long run.
In contrast, we propose that a performance-avoid GO deters both exploratory and exploitative
learning and thus is negatively related to intuition and interpretation. Employees with a strong
performance-avoid orientation are motivated to focus their energy on avoiding negative
perceptions of their abilities, which includes worrying about potential performance failures and
evaluations. In line with cognitive theories of attention (Kahneman, 1973), this ongoing worry
about failure consumes valuable cognitive resources that in turn make these individuals less
likely to learn from their experiences, both subconsciously and consciously (e.g., Elliot &
Harackiewicz, 1996). Either these individuals avoid activities that may promote learning out of
fear that participating in such will expose their incompetence (Elliot & Church, 1997;
VandeWalle, 2003), or they are unable to select relevant information necessary for learning due
to their cognitive overload when faced with learning opportunities (Sutcliffe & Weick, 2008).

Proposition 4a: Mastery orientation positively influences the individual learning processes of
intuition and interpretation, in line with explorative learning behaviors.
Proposition 4b: Performance-approach orientation positively influences the individual learning
processes of intuition and interpretation, in line with exploitative learning behaviors.
Proposition 4c: Performance-avoid orientation negatively influences the individual learning
processes of intuition and interpretation.

Group Goal Orientation and Group-Level Learning

According to Crossan et al. (1999), learning at the group level entails group members
collectively participating in processes of interpreting and integrating. Interpreting has to do
with refining and developing intuitive insights through conversations and interactions with
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   969

others, which creates a common language that helps group members explain and understand
their work experiences. Building on this, the process of integrating involves the development
of shared understanding and coordinated action by group members, whereby effective
behaviors are discussed and replicated over time. Integrating allows group members to
develop a collective memory that helps them to drive and adjust behaviors, often through the
use of storytelling (cf. Weick & Roberts, 1993). In line with these theoretical clarifications,
we propose that a group’s GO influences whether group members engage in interpreting and
integrating information in ways that facilitate group learning.2

Interpretation. A group’s GO norms can promote or deter behaviors that comprise

interpretation, including information sharing and collective explanations about the meaning
of work experiences. Evidence on team mental models suggests that group norms are
antecedents to such shared representations of knowledge through which group members
develop similar levels of awareness and understanding of each other and of what is expected
of them (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Consistent with this literature, we propose that
groups with strong mastery norms engage in high levels of interpretation due to the group’s
emphasis on approaching challenges as opportunities for improvement. Members of such
groups try new ways of approaching unfamiliar tasks and inform their colleagues of the
results of their trials, which will positively influence their collective information interpretation
for the sake of explorative learning outcomes (e.g., experimenting with solutions for new
customers). This argument is supported by research indicating that highly mastery-oriented
group members strive to determine causes of discrepant information (LePine, 2005) and
engage in productive debates prior to decision making (Park & DeShon, 2010) as they share
the same expectations about the value and importance of engaging in such behaviors.
Moreover, mastery norms encourage feedback seeking in groups as members value its
potential for facilitating their learning and are relatively unconcerned about appearing
incompetent (e.g., VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997).
Groups with strong performance-approach norms are highly motivated to perform
favorably, which we propose will encourage levels of information interpretation, although
only as it pertains to task-specific information (cf. Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). These
groups seek to impress others by appearing competent, and as a result, their collective
information interpretation will exploit what has worked well in the past to guarantee them
quick performance results. That is, strong performance-approach norms deter information
interpretation among group members if it has no direct relevance for their performance
(Gully & Phillips, 2005). Performance-approach norms also encourage group members to be
careful with whom they share information in order to maintain their positive image (e.g.,
Lee, 1997; Pintrich et al., 2003; Riege, 2005), which limits opportunities for information
sharing (VandeWalle, 2003). These behaviors align with exploitative interpreting that leads
to quicker and more superficial group learning compared with explorative interpreting, as
exploitation is about refinement of current ideas rather than change and experimentation
with new ideas.
In contrast, we argue that performance-avoid norms will prohibit interpretation among
group members. For groups with high levels of performance-avoid norms, there will be a
tendency to avoid open discussions about new and challenging ideas because these
970    Journal of Management / March 2015

discussions might expose weaknesses. That is, in highly performance-avoid-oriented groups,

discussions that venture into uncharted new territory might expose members’ limited
abilities, which could lead other members to ridicule or oust them for their incompetence
(e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997). Members of these groups are therefore more likely to uphold
secrecy to avoid any negative perceptions that may arise from debates over ideas (Riege,
2005). Not surprisingly, these types of behaviors will inhibit any shared interpretation of
information within the group.

Proposition 5a: A group’s mastery orientation positively influences the interpretation of information
among group members, in line with explorative learning.
Proposition 5b: A group’s performance-approach orientation positively influences the interpretation
of information among group members, in line with exploitative learning.
Proposition 5c: A group’s performance-avoid orientation negatively influences the interpretation of
information among group members.

Integration. The integration of information in the group is closely tied to the level of
knowledge interpretation occurring in the group (Wilson, Goodman, & Cronin, 2007).
However, the process of integration is also influenced by behaviors that either encourage or
prohibit the development of shared understanding and coordinated action in groups. Of
particular relevance is cross-understanding, which exists when members have an accurate
understanding of one another’s mental models and also recognize each other’s preferences,
sensitivities, and beliefs (Huber & Lewis, 2010). This type of shared understanding is an
extension of the literatures on team mental models and transactive memory systems, which
emphasize how group members seek information about who is good at what and then use
that stored information as a strategy to enhance performance (Ellis, 2006; Moreland, Argote,
& Krishnan, 1996). The more experiences a group’s members share together in terms of
day-to-day work and training, the better that group is at developing cross-understanding
(Lewis, 2003). Literature on information sharing (Stasser & Titus, 1985, 1987) further
supports this view of information-pooling behaviors in groups, where group members who
have the most opportunities and incentive to share information are more likely to develop a
joint understanding of the situation at hand (i.e., to integrate).
We propose that groups with strong performance-approach norms will engage in the
process of integrating as a strategy for outperforming other groups. These groups aim to
achieve by seeking out external praise and validation, which leads members to pay attention
to each other’s skill sets and preferences to be able to coordinate in ways that highlight their
expertise to external others (e.g., Hirst et al., 2009). This aim accordingly leads to the
integration of exploitative learning behaviors such as the refinement and increased efficiency
of existing knowledge, which the group utilizes to become more competitive (at least in the
short run). We also propose that groups with strong mastery norms will integrate, yet for a
very different reason. Mastery norms reflect group members’ shared meaning about the
importance of competence development, which requires them to be open and aware of who
knows what to appropriately coordinate their resources toward growth and innovation (e.g.,
VandeWalle, 2003). Groups with strong mastery norms are thus likely to develop high cross-
understanding that benefits their explorative learning abilities such as experimenting with
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   971

new knowledge, which positively influences their integrating of such new learning. On the
contrary, we propose that groups with strong performance-avoid norms are less likely to
participate in the process of integrating, since they are too concerned about negative
perceptions of their abilities (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997). This generates performance
anxieties that use up members’ cognitive resources, leaving them unable to effectively
coordinate and integrate knowledge (Sutcliffe & Weick, 2008). Also, performance-avoid
norms encourage members to view information integration as documentation of potential
weaknesses, which further deters them from participating in such activities.

Proposition 6a: A group’s mastery orientation positively influences the integration of information
among group members, in line with explorative learning.
Proposition 6b: A group’s performance-approach orientation positively influences the integration
of information among group members, in line with exploitative learning.
Proposition 6c: A group’s performance-avoid orientation negatively influences the integration of
information among group members.

In view of our group-level GO propositions above, it is important to recognize that the

evidence for GO at this higher level of analysis is only just beginning to accumulate (Porter,
2005). Still, these early studies have shown promising results that support our propositions,
including evidence for the positive effects of a group mastery GO, such as higher levels of
adaptability to difficult goals (LePine, 2005), backing-up behavior, efficacy, and commitment
(Porter, 2005). Research has revealed fewer positive effects of group performance GOs, such
as lower adaptability and performance, compared with highly mastery-oriented groups
(LePine, 2005; Porter, Webb, & Gogus, 2010). To date, however, we have found only one
group-level study that explored the distinction between performance-approach and
performance-avoid GOs. In this study, Mehta, Feild, Armenakis, and Mehta (2009) found that
a group performance-approach GO positively influenced group planning and performance,
while a group performance-avoid GO was unrelated to these behaviors. Mehta et al. (2009)
explained the nonsignificant results for performance-avoid GO as being due to their research
setting, where a competitive performance focus was rewarded, which could have triggered
groups to focus on proving their ability relative to others rather than on avoiding negative
outcomes. These empirical studies suggest that a group’s GO has indeed important
implications for group learning through the types of group process behaviors that it produces;
however, the extent to which group GO influences group learning processes in line with our
propositions is in need of future empirical validation.

Organizational Goal Orientation and Organizational-Level Learning

Thus far, we have highlighted how GO can influence both individual and group learning
processes, yet for an organization to be able to leverage and exploit this prior learning, these
learning processes must translate into institutionalized knowledge that spreads among all
organizational members (e.g., Zollo & Winter, 2002). As noted above, institutionalization
takes place once the process of integrating becomes more recurring and significant within
972    Journal of Management / March 2015

the organization (Crossan et al., 1999), such as through formalized and collectively enforced
rules and procedures. Organizations can ensure that this organizational learning process of
institutionalization is possible by embedding knowledge developed at lower levels of
analysis into their systems, structures, routines, and practices. We argue that institutionalization
of learning will differ as a function of the organization’s GO culture. We further argue that
the spread of knowledge throughout the organization’s social network structure will be
closely tied to the organization’s GO culture, as detailed below.

Institutionalization. A mastery culture represents organizational members’ shared

assumptions about the importance of pursuing success through skill development. Members
of this type of organizational culture collectively see the value of experimentation, errors,
and risk taking for the continuing growth of the organization, and this shared understanding
reinforces these behaviors over time. As such, we propose that a highly mastery-oriented
culture will promote the institutionalization of learning mechanisms that require and reward
employees to take part in ongoing explorative learning processes. Such learning
mechanisms include post-project reviews, strategic planning (Lipshitz et al., 2002),
information-sharing policies, education and training (James, 2002), knowledge databases,
and risk-taking and error-detection awards, which all encourage organizational members to
challenge existing processes for the sake of progressive change and innovation (Crossan
et al., 1999; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998). In contrast, we propose that a highly performance-
approach-oriented culture is suited toward institutionalizing different types of practices
aimed at exploitative learning, such as monthly competitor reviews and technological
refinement practices, that can help enhance efficiency. Standardization of these types of
performance-driven, competitive practices aligns with organizational members’ shared
assumptions about the importance of outperforming others for success. That is, members of
performance-approach cultures collectively endorse and repeat those actions and routines
that are deemed effective for producing results.
If learning opportunities are indeed institutionalized, like in the examples above, employees
are more likely to adopt and support behaviors that encourage intuiting, interpreting, and
integrating across levels of analysis. Without any formal attempts to control processes of
exploration and exploitation, organizations may end up compromising their long-term learning
abilities and resulting competitiveness (March, 1991). We propose that this is the case for
highly performance-avoid-oriented cultures that are less likely to attempt to enhance learning
through any strategic formalizations because their underlying beliefs and assumptions are built
on fear of failure. These beliefs and assumptions give rise to an overemphasis on the use of
secrecy and information hiding, which keeps organizational members from being able to
pursue the task- and learning-focused activities that could actually help them succeed. These
strategies are maladaptive and could lead to stagnation; thus, organizations with performance-
avoid cultures will deter institutionalization of learning and may ultimately fail to survive.

Proposition 7a: Mastery-oriented cultures institutionalize explorative learning opportunities into

their strategy and formal practices.
Proposition 7b: Performance-approach-oriented cultures institutionalize exploitative learning
opportunities into their strategy and formal practices.
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   973

Proposition 7c: Performance-avoid-oriented cultures do not institutionalize learning opportunities

into their strategy and formal practices.

Organizational network structure. We propose that an organization’s GO culture also

influences its social network structure, which has the potential to further influence the spread
of learning. From a network perspective, actors (i.e., individuals or organizational units)
need to form network connections with others in their organization to help them gain social
utility (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004; Kilduff, Tsai, & Hanke, 2006). Hence, an
organization’s GO will influence the number and type of network ties that are formed across
its members as well as the type of learning that is ultimately institutionalized (if at all).
Mastery cultures highly value the potential for learning from feedback and interaction
with others (cf. VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). Members of these cultures not only seek
out feedback and information but also offer advice to others in the hopes that such
information can benefit the organization as a whole. We propose that the ties in this type of
network are bidirectional in that mastery cultures promote reciprocal exchange of
information, which generates a diverse knowledge base. We further argue that mastery-
oriented cultures encourage interaction across the network; this high network density thus
increases the amount of sharing that takes place in terms of ideas, information, beliefs, and
knowledge (e.g., Hannah & Lester, 2009; Lechner, Frankenberger, & Floyd, 2010).
Collectively, these widespread and reciprocal network ties fuel the institutionalization of
explorative learning practices as members collaborate toward developing their organization’s
ability (e.g., Burt, 1987).
Performance-approach cultures also value feedback and interaction to the extent that such
behaviors may lead to performance recognition and benefits. However, organizational
members are guarded and engage in face-saving behaviors to appear more competent than
others (e.g., Lee, 1997; Pintrich et al., 2003). This caution leads individuals and groups to
monitor the environment and other units (VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997) without creating
strong ties, unless they want to and can impress others (VandeWalle, 2003). For these reasons,
we argue that performance-approach cultures encourage their members to form incoming
network ties only with those individuals or units that are less senior (i.e., higher chance of
appearing competent) and outgoing network ties only with those who they want to and can
impress (e.g., experts and leaders during good performance only). These ties are one-directional
to ensure that members of performance-approach cultures gain external validation for their
work. Performance-approach networks are thus less dense than mastery-oriented networks and
consist of more structural holes that gatekeepers, such as more powerful and experienced
employees, “guard” in the hopes of gaining performance praise (e.g., Zaheer & Bell, 2005).
Finally, organizations with a strong performance-avoid-oriented culture view feedback
and informational interaction as having little potential value yet very high potential costs,
such as looking incompetent and unintelligent (e.g., Payne et al., 2007). As a result, members
of these organizations minimize the formation of informal network ties by observing rather
than interacting with other groups around them. As such, we propose that organizations with
a strong performance-avoid culture will tend to have an informal social network structure
that closely parallels the formal organizational structure (i.e., interunit reporting relationships)
because members do not see the value of additional connections above and beyond what is
974    Journal of Management / March 2015

required of them. By avoiding the creation of additional network ties, performance-avoid

cultures deter the institutionalization of learning, and thus such organizations tend to have
“silos” of knowledge.

Proposition 8a: Mastery-oriented cultures have dense network structures with bidirectional ties that
positively influence the institutionalization of explorative learning.
Proposition 8b: Performance-approach-oriented cultures have moderately dense network structures
with structural holes and one-directional ties that positively influence the institutionalization of
exploitative learning.
Proposition 8c: Performance-avoid-oriented cultures have minimal network ties, which negatively
influences the institutionalization of learning.

Contextual Contingencies of Emergence

We have described how GO emerges at higher levels of analysis to form group norms and
organizational cultures that have implications for learning processes across levels. Until now,
we have addressed this emergence as an isomorphic process where GO looks functionally
similar across levels (e.g., groups develop mastery norms when they are composed of
mastery-oriented individuals, and organizations with such groups develop mastery-focused
cultures). However, as highlighted in Figure 1, this may be overly simplistic such that
contextual contingencies can disrupt this process and create the nonisomorphic emergence
of collective GO (e.g., groups are mastery oriented, while their organization is performance
oriented). Theory on the nonisomorphic emergence of organizational phenomena is rare
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), but we feel it is important to address in this case because the
emergence of GO across levels is a complex process where individual members’ tendencies
in GO do not necessarily translate in similar ways at higher levels because of several
contingencies that may alter emergence.

Contextual Contingencies at the Group Level

We argue that features of the work group context, including group leadership and group
composition effects, can disrupt the way individuals’ GOs emerge to the group level through
social verification processes, social information processing, and ASA processes. These
contextual factors can influence the extent to which individuals’ GOs emerge to create more
widespread norms for a given GO, which has implications for group learning processes.

Group leadership. We propose that group leaders create conditions under which the
emergence of certain GOs becomes more or less likely. Organizational scholars have argued
that leaders provide meaning and shape the interpretation of their group members (Bandura,
1986; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), and as such, they play an important role in the type of
group norms that are established (Hannah & Lester, 2009). Group members may tend to
develop certain GO norms through social verification and social information processes
based upon their individual GO preferences; however, leaders can strongly influence these
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   975

processes by providing behavioral cues about the importance of different types of goals and
behaviors in the group. Accordingly, when group leaders promote and reward explorative
learning behaviors such as risk taking and innovation, this is likely to accentuate the
emergence of mastery norms because group members make sense of such behaviors as the
most appropriate in that context, regardless of the team composition of members’ GOs.
Leaders can also encourage the development of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), a
sense of confidence in the group that members will not reject or punish someone for speaking
up, by highlighting the importance of change while minimizing concerns about power and
status differences in the group. Edmondson (2002, 2003) revealed that team psychological
safety is positively associated with team learning behaviors; instilling psychological safety is
essential for groups to be able and willing to learn. We thus propose that regardless of group
members’ GOs, leaders’ encouragement to engage in explorative learning behaviors and build
psychological safety will accentuate the tendency for mastery norms to emerge (even if these
norms are contrary to the proclivities of the individual members).
Conversely, we propose that leaders who promote performance goals that require group
members to demonstrate and gain favorable judgments about their competence can redirect
group members’ sensemaking toward the development of performance-approach norms,
regardless of members’ initial preferences. However, similar to arguments above, these
performance goals need to be coupled with psychological safety for group members to
participate in the exploitative learning behaviors necessary for improving their performance.
If situations are threatening and psychological safety is absent, groups with a high
performance-approach orientation may begin to experience a fear of failure, withdraw effort,
and shift toward a performance-avoid orientation (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997). Consequently,
we argue that when leaders set performance goals while treating challenges in their groups
as problems that can reveal incompetence (i.e., no psychological safety), group members are
more likely to collectively interpret learning opportunities as risky, leading to the emergence
of performance-avoid norms.

Proposition 9: The form of collective goal orientation that emerges from the individual to group
level may be altered by leadership such that (a) mastery norms are more likely to emerge when
leaders promote mastery goals coupled with psychological safety; (b) performance-approach
norms are more likely to emerge when leaders promote performance goals coupled with
psychological safety; and (c) performance-avoid norms are more likely to emerge when leaders
promote performance goals coupled with a lack of psychological safety.

Group composition. While it is common to conceptualize a group’s GO based on the

mean levels of its members’ GOs (e.g., Porter, 2005), research on team compositions reveals
that not all members have equal “worth” (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998). The
study of group compositions has a rich history in organizational research due to the evidence
that such compositions influence group processes, norms, and outcomes (e.g., Barrick et al.,
1998; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Correspondingly, we recognize that our
proposition for how the emergence of GO norms is reinforced by ASA processes (Schneider,
1987) may be more or less likely as a function of the members’ differential status and
influence. That is, while norms are developed as a function of the people in the group, the
976    Journal of Management / March 2015

group norms that emerge are contingent on the influence of some members more than other
members. For example, even if the majority of group members have a low mastery GO, an
emergent leader (Hollander, 1961) with a very high mastery GO can enhance the likelihood
of emergent group norms that support learning and creativity instead. This type of emergent
leader helps the rest of the group members feel it is safe and possible to improve their skills
together, thereby influencing their interpretation of what constitutes appropriate behaviors in
the group. This member is also likely to attract other mastery-oriented members to the group,
which further increases the likelihood of the emergence of mastery norms. Similarly, theory
on “bad apples” (e.g., Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006) suggests that having just one
group member who violates group norms may negatively influence group processes. An
individual who consistently points out flaws in others may encourage a defensive stand
among group members such that performance-avoid becomes the priority at the cost of long-
term learning. This member is also likely to attract similar individuals to the group, thereby
reinforcing those norms over time. We thus propose that a high-status member who promotes
certain GO behaviors will strengthen the likelihood that the group will adopt parallel GO
norms (regardless of their own GOs).

Proposition 10: The goal orientation of a high-status member may alter the form of collective goal
orientation as it emerges such that if he or she is highly mastery oriented, performance-approach
oriented, or performance-avoid oriented, the group members collectively are more likely to
adopt norms that fit that orientation.

Contextual Contingencies at the Organizational Level

We previously argued that a group’s collective GO can emerge to the organizational level
through processes of shared experiences and retrospective interpreting over time. In this
section, we provide propositions regarding the moderating role that intergroup resource
competition and organizational structure play for these processes of emergence and subsequent
levels of learning.

Intergroup resource competition. We propose that intergroup resource competition can

influence the nature of the organizational GO culture that emerges by affecting how
organizational groups interact and collectively make sense of potential learning opportunities.
In organizations where groups must compete for the resources available, they are likely to
withhold information that may benefit other groups (Richter, Scully, & West, 2005). For
example, a consulting group that does not deliver as expected on a project may get “benched”
and lose access to important projects that are instead distributed to other groups. If one
group’s success comes at the cost of another’s, groups will look out for themselves at the
cost of the overall organizational success. This competitive interdependence impedes trust
between groups, which has detrimental implications for how organizations approach
achievement situations (e.g., Kramer, 1991). Thus, even if intragroup norms throughout the
organization are predominantly mastery focused, intergroup resource competition makes the
emergence of a performance-avoid culture likely since groups under such circumstances
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   977

begin to collectively interpret interactions with others as challenges and threats for the
necessary resources. This resource competition makes the emergence of a mastery- or
performance-approach organization-wide culture less likely because these cultures require
some level of trust for groups to be willing and motivated to engage in learning behaviors,
either explorative or exploitative (i.e., these behaviors are not viewed as the best way for the
organization to behave under such circumstances; Schein, 1990).

Proposition 11: Intergroup resource competition may alter the form of collective goal orientation
as it emerges from the group to the organizational level such that organizations that encourage
strong intergroup resource competition are likely to develop a performance-avoid-oriented
culture and are unlikely to develop mastery- or performance-approach-oriented cultures.

Organizational structure. We also propose that the emergence of a GO culture at the

organizational level is influenced by the formal organizational structure, which affects the
values, beliefs, and assumptions about how learning is approached in organizations (e.g.,
Perretti & Negro, 2006). In terms of hierarchical reporting structures, scholars have shown
how organizations that encourage employees to work in horizontal structures with fewer
power differences facilitate learning (Edmondson, 2002). Employees who work in flatter
organizations are able to focus on networking with relevant coworkers across roles and
levels as opposed to certain reporting structures only (James, 2002). Reduced power
differences further allow and encourage employees to question and disagree with issues they
feel may be detrimental to their learning (Edmondson, 2002). Based on these arguments, we
propose that horizontal structures can influence the extent to which organizational groups
interpret and make sense of learning and innovation as the appropriate way to pursue
achievement, thereby increasing the likelihood that groups’ mastery norms spread and
characterize the organizational culture. In contrast, vertical structures exacerbate power
differences among employees and encourage more competition, as employees have to prove
themselves as being better than others to get promoted or to avoid disciplinary action.
Accordingly, we propose that vertical structures make groups more cautious and risk aversive
in their interpretation of the right way to behave for achievement success, which in turn make
the emergence of performance-approach and performance-avoid cultures more likely.

Proposition 12: Organizational reporting structures may alter the form of collective goal orientation
as it emerges from the group to the organizational level such that (a) if they are horizontal,
groups are more likely to converge on a mastery goal orientation culture, and (b) if they are
vertical, groups are more likely to converge on a performance-approach or performance-avoid
goal orientation culture.

Discussion and Implications

Our goal with this article was to provide a fuller depiction of why and how learning
unfolds in organizations by using an emergent, motivational perspective inspired by
achievement goal theory (Dweck, 1986). Organizations are goal-directed entities that often
pursue achievement first and foremost, yet they cannot continue to adapt and succeed in
978    Journal of Management / March 2015

competitive environments without a concomitant focus on learning. We argue that achievement

goals and organizational learning are highly interdependent aspects of organizational
functioning that should not be looked at separately. The motivation for organizational learning
is based, at least in part, on the meaning that individuals and collectives derive from
achievement situations. Therefore, the way in which achievement settings are interpreted and
further reinforced within group and organizational interactions can promote or deter learning
across levels of analysis.
Our theoretical synthesis of organizational learning and achievement goal theories
provides an answer to the question of why learning emerges in organizations by depicting
how individuals’ interpretations of achievement situations lead them to actively seek out or
avoid learning opportunities in their daily work settings. Our framework also illustrates how
such learning transpires by demonstrating how the achievement motivation present across
individuals and collectives drives different behaviors that influence multilevel learning
processes. Although our framework focused primarily on the emergence of a shared perception
of the appropriate way to behave in achievement contexts (i.e., a collective GO), we also
delineated important top-down effects, such as group leadership and organizational reporting
structures, which further influence the type of achievement motivation and subsequent types
of learning that emerge across levels. This multilevel theoretical framework highlights the
importance of the motivational microfoundations of organizational learning in addition to
the cognitive, resource-based, and competence-based macro approaches that are more
commonly seen in the organizational learning literature.

Research Implications

The propositions in this article await empirical investigation. One of the most important
avenues for research will be to study GO and multilevel learning processes in line with our
theory. For example, we proposed that mastery and performance-approach cultures institutionalize
learning mechanisms that require and reward employees to grow from their work experiences,
yet there is still a need to clarify the exact nature of these growth-focused mechanisms.
Future research should also seek to integrate social network analysis into this domain of
inquiry. We have argued that organizations’ network structures differ as a function of their
GO cultures. However, scholars have not heretofore investigated collective GO in relation
to network structures, so this is an area that is ripe for future inquiry.
Another opportunity for research is to further investigate GO as a collective construct to
help us understand how such shared perceptions about achievement emerge. For example,
we argued that GO norms emerge as members develop collective interpretations of social
events (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). However, what events are the most influential for guiding
group members toward developing shared GO norms, such as potentially disastrous incidents
or frequently encountered everyday behavior patterns? Likewise, we proposed that organizations
develop GO cultures in response to critical stakeholders’ influence over sensemaking
processes. Although organizational leaders are likely to be influential stakeholders, this may
differ as a function of organization or industry type. For example, public organizations may
face institutional pressures that influence their GO cultures that are different from the
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   979

pressures that influence private organizations. Building on this, we know little about how
established GO norms and cultures are sustained versus changed over time. While we expect
the social environment to influence individuals’ interpretations of appropriate achievement
behaviors, it is less clear whether this is an ongoing process where a new group member is
likely or unlikely to disrupt these normative interpretations. In other words, the study of
change and sustainability of collective GOs from a bottom-up perspective is sorely needed
in this field of research (e.g., bad apples; Felps et al., 2006).
It is important to recognize that GO may not emerge in a purely isomorphic manner, such
that collective GO may look dissimilar across levels. This elicits questions about the extent
to which ASA, social cues, and collective interpretation processes create divergent GO
tendencies across levels. One possibility to examine questions such as these would be to use
experimental simulations where group member sensemaking after critical events is examined
(e.g., Roberson, 2006). This issue also raises questions regarding the impact of GO on
employee collaboration across levels. That is, do individuals and groups with different GOs
complement each other, or do their differences create potentially disruptive conflicts? We
hope that our framework will inspire research on questions such as these to better understand
the nature and emergence of collective GO.
Another direction for future research is to further explore contextual effects on the
emergence of GO and organizational learning. One extension beyond our framework would
be to examine the type of organization and organizational life stage, where GO may have
different effects as the organization grows and becomes more complex over time. For
example, it may be that mastery-oriented cultures are most critical in the early life stages of
an organization (when exploration is of special relevance), whereas a performance-approach
orientation is more beneficial later on (when efficiency is prioritized). Having said that, the
undesirability of a collective performance-avoid GO and its negative effects on learning is
less ambiguous. We believe that organizations with this type of avoidance culture are
unlikely to succeed in the long run unless they are part of a government institution or are
funded despite lack of performance.
Although we have discussed each type of GO independently with regard to its effects on
organizational learning, future research should investigate the interplay between these GO
types. Depending on the context, organizations may need to prioritize mastery-oriented
practices (explorative learning) over performance-approach-oriented ones (exploitative
learning); however, both types of orientations bring with them important value for learning
behaviors in the right setting. For example, an overemphasis on explorative learning may not
benefit already high-performing groups where a balance between performance-approach-
oriented behaviors and mastery-oriented behaviors is more valuable (e.g., Bunderson &
Sutcliffe, 2003). Similarly, a mastery culture may not be desirable for organizations working
on simple tasks where pursuing challenges may interfere with operations. In such
organizations, a performance-approach-oriented culture that focuses on how to make current
tasks more efficient rather than inventing a new approach is more beneficial. Still, individual-
level research suggests that a high-performance GO is most beneficial when coupled with a
high-mastery GO (i.e., negative effects are “buffered”; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004).
Determining the most effective balance between collective mastery and performance-
approach GO is an important avenue for future research. It is also key to keep in mind that
980    Journal of Management / March 2015

the GO types are orthogonal dimensions (e.g., Payne et al., 2007), such that mastery and
performance GO are not opposites; rather, individuals and collectives may possess high,
moderate, or low levels on each of the GO types. Organizations may need to balance an
enhancement of one type of GO while not losing what is already working as a result of
another GO type. We encourage research that examines these assertions.

Practical Implications

While the propositions in this article require empirical testing, below we speculate on the
practical implications that may emerge. First of all, organizations should invest in training
for their leaders to appropriately support learning. Leaders transmit normative expectations
about how group members will be treated in achievement situations, and in doing so, they
are highly influential for developing or deterring psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999).
Those leaders who create a trusting work environment that allows employees to see
challenges as opportunities and to learn from mistakes are more likely to generate learning.
Leaders can develop psychological safety through the use of informal mentoring initiatives
that build community and through the use of “lunch and learn” meetings as a safe place to
question ideas nondefensively.
Organizations should also carefully consider the impact of their resource allocation
processes on their ability to learn collectively. By forcing organizational units to compete
for resources and making such tournaments salient, organizations may inadvertently
hamper important learning processes. Tournament models of compensation are based on
rank-ordered rather than absolute performance (Lazear & Rosen, 1981), which can lead to
behaviors that benefit individuals rather than the organization. For example, in competitive
environments in which failures are clearly noticeable and costly (i.e., no resources for low
performers), employees are likely to withhold information that is valuable for the
organization in their quest to secure resources for their own or their group’s performance.
While competition can trigger such defensive behaviors that deter learning from taking
place (i.e., performance-avoid behaviors due to a fear of failure), competition is not
necessarily detrimental for learning at all times. In situations where the outcome of
competition is less threatening (i.e., does not lead to complete loss of resources and/or
includes some level of trust), friendly competition can motivate employees to want to
outperform others (performance-approach behaviors) and promote exploitative learning.
To combat the negative effects of resource tournaments, organizations may want to
consider resource allocation systems that encourage competition based on absolute
performance and/or improvements over time, thereby generating performance-approach
and exploitative learning behaviors. If this is not possible, encouraging greater
interdepartmental coordination (e.g., through cross-departmental project teams or job
rotation into and out of departments) may help to break down barriers to institutionalization
of learning. In short, organizations need to be unambiguously aware of the messages that
their policies and processes send to their employees for the appropriate type of learning to
be promoted rather than discouraged altogether.
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   981

Conclusion

Given that organizational learning has been cited as one of the key determining factors
for organizational competitiveness and survival, we need a clearer understanding of why and
how this phenomenon emerges in organizations. In this article, we developed a multilevel
conceptualization of organizational learning in combination with achievement goal theory
that directly addresses these important questions. This theoretical synthesis speaks to the
value of using an emergent motivational theory to better understand how predominantly
cognitive learning processes may emerge across levels in organizations. It is our hope that this
framework facilitates future research that ultimately enables organizations to simultaneously
enhance their achievement and learning outcomes.

Notes

1. Much of the psychological research on achievement goal theory uses the term “mastery GO” (e.g., Pintrich,
Conley, & Kempler, 2003), but this construct is also referred to as “learning GO” within the organizational litera-
ture (e.g., Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Dragoni, 2005). These construct labels should be treated as equivalent.
We adopted the label mastery GO to help differentiate this motivational construct from organizational learning
processes.
2. While we adopted the Crossan, Lane, and White (1999) framework of organizational learning processes, at
the group level of analysis this framework has several parallels with Wilson, Goodman, and Cronin’s (2007) group
learning framework. Wilson et al. (2007) describe how group learning takes place through processes of sharing,
storage, and retrieval of knowledge, routines, or behaviors. These processes correspond with Crossan et al.’s (1999)
descriptions of interpretation and integration. Specifically, interpreting at the group level has to do with refining and
developing intuitive insights through conversations and interactions with others, which can be seen as a form of
information sharing (Wilson et al., 2007). Integrating involves the development of shared understanding and coor-
dinated action by group members, whereby effective behaviors are discussed and replicated over time, similar to
Wilson et al.’s (2007) storing and retrieval behaviors.

References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review,
27: 17-40.
Alvesson, M. 2002. Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage
Ames, C., & Archer, J. 1988. Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learning strategies and motivation
process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80: 260-267.
Antonacopoulou, E. P. 2006. The relationship between individual and organizational learning: New evidence from
managerial learning practices. Management Learning, 37: 455-473.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and
review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49: 571-582.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bapuji, H., & Crossan, M. 2004. From questions to answers: Reviewing organizational learning research.
Management Learning, 35: 397-417.
982    Journal of Management / March 2015

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. 1998. Relating member ability and personality to
work–team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 377-391.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. 2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations: A
multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 795-817.
Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. 1999. Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of performance in a training
program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 863-873.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2003. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 552-560.
Burt, R. S. 1987. Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of
Sociology, 92: 1287-1335.
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.
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A
typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234-246.
Chen, G., & Mathieu, J. E. 2008. Goal orientation dispositions and performance trajectories: The roles of
supplementary and complementary situation inducements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 106: 21-38.
Cho, T. S., & Hambrick, D. C. 2006. Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and
strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization Science, 17: 453-469.
Cialdini, R. B. 2007. Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72:
263-268.
Cialdini, R. B., Bator, R. J., & Guadagno, R. E. 1999. Normative influences in organizations. In L. L. Thompson,
J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge: 195-211.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert,
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2): 151-192. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Covington, M. V. 2000. Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of
Psychology, 51: 171-200
Crossan, M., Lane, H., & White, R. 1999. An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution.
Academy of Management Review, 24: 522-538.
Denison, D. R. 1996. What is the difference between culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view
on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21: 619-654.
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. 2005. A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90: 1096-1127.
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. 1978. An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance,
strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36: 451-
462.
Dragoni, L. 2005. Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational work groups: The role
of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1084-1095.
Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. K. 2001. Achievement goal theory in sport: Recent extensions and future directions. In R.
N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research in sport psychology (2nd ed.): 417-
434. New York: Wiley.
Dweck, C. S. 1975. The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 31: 674-685.
Dweck, C. S. 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41: 1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S. 2000. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology
Press/Taylor and Francis.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological
Review, 95: 256-273.
Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44: 350-383.
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   983

Edmondson, A. C. 2002. The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective.
Organization Science, 13: 128-146.
Edmondson, A. C. 2003. Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary
action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1419-1452.
Edmondson, A. C. 2008. The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business Review, July: 60-67.
Elliot, A. J. 1999. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34: 169-189.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. 1997. A hierarchal model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 218-232.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. 1996. Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A
mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 968-980.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. 1988. Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54: 5-12.
Ellis, A. P. J. 2006. System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship
between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 576-589.
Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. 1993. Goal orientation and action control theory: Implications for
industrial and organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
industrial and organizational psychology: 193-233. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. 2005. Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization,
3: 441-455.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. 2006. How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group
members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 175-222.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. 1985. Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10: 803-813.
Forsyth, D. R. 2006. Group dynamics (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Gavetti, G. 2005. Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of capability development.
Organization Science, 16: 599-617.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic
Management Journal, 12: 433-448.
Gong, Y. P., Hung, C. J., & Farh, J. L. 2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and
employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal,
52: 765-778.
Gully, S. M., & Phillips, J. M. 2005. A multilevel application of learning and performance orientations to individual,
group, and organizational outcomes. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource
management: 1-52. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hannah, S. T., & Lester, P. B. 2009. A multilevel approach to building and leading learning organizations. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20: 34-48.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. 1997. Determinants and consequences
of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 1284-1295.
Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. 1996. Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In
R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3): 28-84. New York:
Guilford.
Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. 1998. Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning
in organizations. Human Relations, 51: 847-871.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis.
Organization Science, 15: 481-494.
Heimeriks, K. H., & Duysters, G. 2007. Alliance capability as a mediator between experience and alliance
performance: An empirical investigation into the alliance capability development process. Journal of Management
Studies, 44: 25-49.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. 1997. The emergent conceptualization of groups as information
processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121: 43-64.
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. 2009. A multi-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation,
team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 280-293.
984    Journal of Management / March 2015

Hollander, E. P. 1961. Emergent leadership and social influence. In L. Pertrullo & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership
and interpersonal behavior: 30-47. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2:
88-115.
Huber, G. P., & Lewis, K. 2010. Cross-understanding: Implications for group cognition and performance. Academy
of Management Review, 35: 6-26.
James, C. R. 2002. Designing learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 32: 46-61.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. 2004. Employees goal orientations, the quality of leader–member exchange, and
the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 368-384.
Kahneman, D. 1973. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kang, S.-C., Morris, S. S., & Snell S. A. 2007. Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation:
Extending the human resource architecture. Academy of Management Review, 32: 236-256.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. 2007. The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational
Psychology Review, 19: 141-184.
Kilduff, M., Tsai, W., & Hanke, R. 2006. A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social
network research program. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 1031-1048.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. 1994. Team mental model: Construct or metaphor. Journal of Management, 20:
403-437.
Kostopoulos, K. C., Spanos, Y. E., & Prastacos, G. P. 2011. Structure and function of team learning emergence:
A multilevel empirical validation. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/014920631
1419366
Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. 2001. Effects of training
goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adaptability.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85: 1-31.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations. In K. J. Klein
& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: 3-90. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kraiger, K., & Wenzel, L. H. 1997. A framework for understanding and measuring shared mental models of team
performance and team effectiveness. In E. Salas, M. T. Brannick, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance
assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications: 63-84. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kramer, R. 1991. Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior: 191-228. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Lazear, E. P., & Rosen, S. 1981. Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy,
81: 841-864.
Lechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. 2010. Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between
intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 865-889.
Lee, F. 1997. When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power motivation in
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72: 336-363.
LePine, J. A. 2005. Adaption of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team
composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1153-1167.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319-340.
Lewis, K. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88: 587-604.
Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedman, V. J. 2002. A multifacet model of organizational learning. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 38: 78-98.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87.
Martin, J. 2002. Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, J., Frost, P. J., & O’Neil, O. A. 2006. Organizational culture: Beyond struggles for intellectual dominance.
In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies: 725-753.
London: Sage.
McGrath, R. G. 2001. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management
Journal, 44: 118-131.
Chadwick, Raver / Goal Orientation and Organizational Learning   985

Mehta, A., Feild, H., Armenakis, A., & Mehta, N. 2009. Team goal orientation and team performance: The
mediating role of team planning. Journal of Management, 35: 1026-1046.
Middleton, M., Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. 2004. The change in middle school students’ achievement goals in
mathematics over time. Social Psychology of Education, 7: 289-311.
Miner A. S., & Mezias, S. J. 1996. Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures of organizational learning research.
Organization Science, 7: 88-99.
Moreland, R., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. 1996. Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group
performance. In J. Nye & A. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition: 57-85. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for
multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 249-265.
O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. 1991. People, jobs, and organizational culture. Academy of Management
Journal, 34: 487-516.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. 2003. Organizational climate and culture. In W. C. Borman,
D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.
12): 565-593. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Park, G., & DeShon, R. P. 2010. A multilevel model of minority opinion expression and team decision-making
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 824-833.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. 2007. A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation
nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 128-150.
Perretti, F., & Negro, G. 2006. Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration and
exploitation in team design. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 759-777.
Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. 2003. Current issues in achievement goal theory and research.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39: 319-337.
Ployhart, R. E., & Schmitt, N. 2008. The attraction-selection-attrition model and staffing: Some multilevel
implications. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Dynamic linkages between individuals and
organizations: 87-100. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Baughman, K. 2006. The structure and function of human capital emergence: A
multilevel examination of the attraction-selection-attrition model. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 661-677.
Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E. 2007. Achievement goals and interpersonal
behavior: How mastery and performance goals shape information exchange. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 33: 1435-1447.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. 1998. Organizational learning mechanisms: A cultural and structural approach to
organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34: 161-179.
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. 2006. Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91: 185-192.
Porter, C. O. L. H. 2005. Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment
in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 811-818.
Porter, C. O. L. H. 2008. A multilevel, multiconceptualization perspective of goal orientation in teams. In V. I. Sessa
& M. London (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding and assessing how groups learn in organizations:
149-173. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Porter, C. O. L. H., Webb, J. W., & Gogus, C. I. 2010. When goal orientations collide: Effects of learning and
performance orientation on team adaptability in response to workload imbalance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95: 935-943.
Pratt, M., & Rafaeli, A. 1997. Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities. Academy of
Management Journal, 40: 862-898.
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. 2006. Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational
culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 433-458.
Raven, B. H., & Rubin, J. Z. 1976. Social psychology: People in groups. New York: Wiley.
Rawsthorne, L. J., & Elliot, A. J. 1999. Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analytic review.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3: 326-344.
Richter, A. W., Scully, J., & West, M. A. 2005. Intergroup conflict and intergroup effectiveness in organizations:
Theory and scale development. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14: 177-203.
986    Journal of Management / March 2015

Riege, A. 2005. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9: 18-35.
Roberson, Q. M. 2006. Justice in teams: The activation and role of sensemaking in the emergence of justice
climates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110: 177-192.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-253.
Schein, E. H. 1990. Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45: 109-119.
Schein, E. H. 1992. Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. 1993. How can organizations learn faster? The challenge of entering the green room. Sloan
Management Review, 34: 85-92.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.
Schneider, B. 1990. The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In B. Schneider (Ed.),
Organizational climate and culture: 383-412. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. 1983. On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36: 19-39.
Selznick, P. 1996. Institutionalism old and new. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1: 270-277.
Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Sherif, M. 1936. The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information
sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 1467-1478.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. 1987. Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination
of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 81-93.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. 1990. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American
Psychologist, 45: 120-133.
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. 2008. Information overload revisited. In G. P. Hodgkinson & W. H. Starbuck
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of organizational decision making: 56-75. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Turner, J. C. 1991. Social influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. 2002. The classroom
environment and students’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94: 88-106.
Urdan, T., Ryan, A. M., Anderman, E. M., & Gheen, M. H. 2002. Goals, goal structures, and avoidance behaviors.
In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning: 55-83. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Utman, C. H. 1997. Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 1: 170-182.
VandeWalle, D. 2001. Goal orientation: Why wanting to look successful doesn’t always lead to success.
Organizational Dynamics, 30: 162-171.
VandeWalle, D. 2003. A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human Resource Management
Review, 13: 581-604.
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.
Van Vianen, A. E. M. 2000. Person–organization fit: The match between newcomers’ and recruiters’ preferences for
organizational cultures. Personnel Psychology, 53: 113-149.
Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357-381.
Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. S., & Cronin, M. A. 2007. Group learning. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1041-
1059.
Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. 2005. Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes and
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 809-825.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization
Science, 13: 339-351.