Self-Regulation: From Goal Orientation to Job Performance

Christine L. PorathUniversity of Southern California

Thomas S. BatemanUniversity of Virginia

The authors investigated the effects on job performance of 3 forms of goal orientation and 4 self-regulation (SR) tactics. In a longitudinal field study with salespeople, learning and performance-provegoal orientation predicted subsequent sales performance, whereas performance-avoid goal orientationnegatively predicted sales performance. The SR tactics functioned as mediating variables betweenlearning and performance-prove goal orientations and performance. Social competence and proactivebehavior directly and positively predicted sales performance, and emotional control negatively predictedperformance.

Keywords: self-regulation, goal orientation, job performance

People’s ability to self-regulate may be their most essentialasset. Self-regulation (SR) is defined by processes that enable anindividual to guide his or her goal-directed activities over time andacross changing circumstances, including the modulation of thought,affect, and behavior (R. Kanfer, 1990; Karoly, 1993; Zimmerman,2001). In organizations, practicing managers want people to achievehigh performance levels; industrial–organizational psychologistsaccordingly are interested in individuals’ regulation of their ownlevels of job performance (Vancouver, 2000). But despite knowingwhat is important for people to self-regulate at work, industrialorganizational psychologists know little about how people attemptto do so and, especially, how it can be done most effectively. Inthis study, we show that different goal orientations differentiallypredict subsequent job performance, as mediated by four specificself-regulatory tactics: feedback seeking, proactive behavior, emo-tional control, and social competence.

Although SR research has highlighted the importance of goals,it typically has focused narrowly on a single task goal and hasneglected the mediating tactics between goals and job performance(Karoly, 1993). But people’s goals at work are not composedmerely of single task goals. People can have and act on at leastthree different types of broad goal orientations (VandeWalle,1997; Elliot, 1999): learning, performance-prove, and perfor-mance-avoid. These goal orientations potentially hold important

implications for people’s work behaviors and ultimately their jobperformance. However, only a few studies using students (Brett &VandeWalle, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor,1999; VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001) have investigated thedifferential effects of the three dimensions of goal orientation on(exam) performance, and those studies yielded inconsistent results.Moreover, when researchers have studied SR tactics, they gener-ally have isolated a single SR tactic and tested it as an independentvariable, not as one of a set of mediators between goals andperformance. By investigating three work-related goal orienta-tions, subsequent job performance, and four mediating SR tactics,we attempt to create with this longitudinal research a more com-prehensive explanation of how people effectively regulate theirown job performance.

Goal Orientation and Its Effects

The goal construct is perhaps the most essential component inSR theories (R. Kanfer, 1990; Vancouver, 2000). Traditionally,psychology and organizational behavior studies have focused onpeople’s goals surrounding task performance (VandeWalle, 1997).However, Dweck and her colleagues (e.g., Dweck & Leggett,1988) made a substantial addition to the performance perspectiveby identifying another type of goal: learning. Whereas perfor-mance goal orientation involves demonstrating and validatingone’s competence, learning goal orientation involves developingcompetence by acquiring new skills and mastering new situations(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Since thesestudies were done, a considerable amount of research in the class-room (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002) and some research in trainingand organizational contexts (e.g., Fisher & Ford, 1998; Kozlowskiet al., 2001) have demonstrated the relationships between learningand performance goal orientations and different affective, cogni-tive, and behavioral responses.

Recent empirical evidence indicates that goal orientation is bestrepresented not by two but by three dimensions (Elliot & Harac-kiewicz, 1996; VandeWalle, 1997): learning, performance-prove,and performance-avoid. People with a high learning goal orienta-tion view skills as malleable (Martocchio, 1994); they make effortsnot only to achieve current tasks but also to develop the ability to

Christine L. Porath, Department of Management and Organization,University of Southern California; Thomas S. Bateman, McIntire School ofCommerce, University of Virginia.

Funding from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill SmithGraduate Research Fund Grant supported this study. We thank JamesDean, Jane Dutton, Christine Pearson, Benson Rosen, and Albert Segarsfor their support as well as their insightful suggestions and assistance,which helped to shape this study. We also thank Sue Ashford, Stacie Furst,Cristina Gibson, Peter Kim, Phil Birnbaum-More, Kimberly Perttula, Nan-dini Rajagopalan, and Ian Williamson for their valuable comments andsuggestions on drafts of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chris-tine L. Porath, University of Southern California, Marshall School ofBusiness, Bridge Hall 307D, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0808. E-mail:cporath@marshall.usc.edu

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association2006, Vol. 91, No. 1, 185–192 0021-9010/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.185

185

accomplish future tasks (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Farr,Hofmann, & Ringenbach, 1993). People with a high performance-prove goal orientation tend to focus on performance and try todemonstrate their ability by looking better than others. People witha high performance-avoid goal orientation also focus on perfor-mance, but this focus is grounded in trying to avoid negativeoutcomes (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996); it is fundamentally aver-sive and threat based (Elliot, 1999).

The distinctions among these goal orientations are especiallypertinent to SR (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Learning andperformance-prove goal orientations are characterized as SR fo-cused on potential positive outcomes (task mastery and normativecompetence, respectively). These approach orientations motivateaffective and cognitive processes that facilitate optimal task en-gagement (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Processes includingchallenge construal, sensitivity to success-relevant information,and cognitive and affective immersion in the activity (Depreeuw,1992; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Wegner, 1994) lead to a masterypattern of beneficial outcomes such as achievement (Elliot &Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Performance-avoidgoal orientation, however, is characterized as SR focused onavoiding negative outcomes, and it is hypothesized to motivateprocesses that produce detrimental achievement outcomes becauseself-protective processes interfere with or prevent optimal taskengagement (e.g., threat construal, anxiety-based preoccupationwith self-presentational rather than task concerns; Elliot & Harac-kiewicz, 1996). Experimental results provided support for thisconceptualization (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996).

On the basis of this theorizing and experimentation, in our fieldstudy of salespeople, we predicted the following:

Hypothesis 1: Learning and performance-prove goal orienta-tions but not performance-avoid orientation will positivelypredict subsequent job performance.

We also expected that learning and performance-prove goalorientations would positively predict certain SR tactics. Learninggoal orientation has a positive relationship with the desire to workhard (Helmreich & Spence, 1978) and with the belief that greatereffort leads to success (Ames, 1992) and thus should motivatepeople to use more SR tactics. Learning goal orientation has beenlinked to a wide range of positive processes and outcomes (Elliot,1999), including a number of SR tactics among students. Forexample, learning goal orientation was associated with effort,persistence, self-determination, willingness to seek help,challenge-related affect, and deep processing of information (Elliot& Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot & McGregor,1999; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; McGregor & Elliot, 1999;Middleton & Midgley, 1997).

Performance-prove goal orientation also has been linked empir-ically to several SR tactics in school settings, including calmnessduring evaluation, higher levels of aspiration, absorption duringtask engagement, and challenge-related affect while studying, aswell as higher course grades and better exam performance (Elliot& Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot & McGregor,1999; Elliot et al., 1999; McGregor & Elliot, 1999; Middleton &Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). But in contrast to learning andperformance-prove orientations, performance-avoid goal orienta-tion prompts people to fall into a maladaptive pattern of helpless-

ness, which precludes optimal task engagement and is not condu-cive to either engaging in SR or performing at high levels (e.g.,Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Sheldon, 1997). Performance-avoid orientation may distract or constrain people from devotingthe same energy to SR because they focus more narrowly andpassively on avoiding failures or consider SR tactics to have lessinstrumental value. Thus, performance-avoid goal orientation isunlikely to have the same positive effects as the two approach-based goal orientations.

In the study of salespeople reported here, we investigated fourwork-related SR variables: feedback seeking, proactive behavior,emotional control, and social competence. Feedback seeking (Ash-ford & Cummings, 1983) is central to the SR literature (e.g.,Ashford & Tsui, 1991); actively seeking feedback is a means forgathering information about how to develop one’s skills and mas-ter tasks (e.g., VandeWalle, Ganesan, Challagalla, & Brown,2000). Proactive behavior (Bateman & Crant, 1993) involvesactions that effect constructive change rather than passive adapta-tion to circumstances or compliance with the status quo; proactivebehavior is known to predict important performance outcomes (cf.Crant, 2000) but is unstudied in the goal-orientation or SR litera-tures. We also studied two subsets of emotional intelligence, betterestablished in the practitioner literature than in the academicmanagement literature. We investigated emotional intelligencewith a measure of emotional control, which involves keepingperformance anxiety and other negative emotional influences frominterfering with task performance (F. H. Kanfer & Ackerman,1996), and a measure of social competence, or social skills used tointeract effectively with others (R. A. Baron & Markman, 2003;Schneider, Ackerman, & Kanfer, 1996). Social competence hasrecently been found to be positively related to entrepreneurialsuccess (R. A. Baron & Markman, 2003) as well as academicachievement and school adjustment (Alexander & Entwistle, 1988;Patrick, Yoon, & Murphy, 1995).

High learning orientation prompts feedback seeking as a meansto gather information about how to develop skills and master tasks(e.g., VandeWalle et al., 2000). Employees with a higher learninggoal orientation are also more likely to be proactive to enhanceself-development (Farr et al., 1993) because they are more inter-ested in increasing competency. Those with a strong learningorientation are also more likely to engage in role innovation or toimplement changes in their work—both examples of proactivebehavior—because they typically view these initiatives as chal-lenges that can foster learning (Farr et al., 1993). People with ahigher performance-prove goal orientation should exhibit similarbehaviors because they are more motivated to take actions tooutperform others or differentiate themselves from others. Thus,we expect individuals with a greater performance-prove goal ori-entation to seek feedback more actively than others without such astrong orientation, using the knowledge gained to outperformothers, and to proactively initiate behaviors that would give thema competitive advantage. Both positive, approach-related goals, incontrast to performance-avoid goals, should also motivate peopleto engage in other constructive SR tactics such as exhibitingemotional control and social competence, because such behaviorscan be instrumental toward increasing task mastery and perfor-mance (Elliot & Church, 1997).

186 RESEARCH REPORTS

Hypothesis 2: Learning and performance-prove goal orienta-tions but not performance-avoid orientation will positivelypredict the four specific SR tactics: feedback seeking, proac-tive behavior, emotional control, and social competence.

SR Tactics and Job Performance

We predicted further that the four SR tactics would positivelypredict subsequent job performance. Feedback seeking is an im-portant SR tactic for reducing discrepancies between the currentstate and one’s goals, and it is likely to affect performance bymotivating individuals and directing them toward effective perfor-mance strategies (cf. Ammons, 1956; Ashford, Blatt, & Vande-Walle, 2003). Active feedback seeking may be essential for ob-taining information about such things as others’ evaluations ofone’s work (Ashford & Tsui, 1991), the relative importance ofvarious goals within a particular setting (Ashford & Cummings,1983), and the ways in which an organization operates (Morrison,1993), as well as for improving job performance (London, Larsen,& Thisted, 1999). A study of newcomers conducted by Morrison(1993) offered support for the feedback seeking–job performancerelationship.

Proactive behavior improves performance because proactivepeople select environments conducive to effective performance,and because they initiate and sustain efforts that beneficially altertheir environments (Bateman & Crant, 1993). For example, pro-active behavior includes identifying and pursuing opportunities forself-improvement, such as acquiring additional education or otherskills that may improve performance (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer,1999). Proactive behavior not only is significantly correlated withcertain types of personal achievements (Bateman & Crant, 1993)but also predicts objective job performance, even after controllingfor the effects of experience, social desirability, general mentalability, conscientiousness, and extraversion (Crant, 1995).

Emotional control may facilitate performance by keeping off-task concerns and emotions from diverting attention away fromone’s tasks (F. H. Kanfer & Ackerman, 1996) and inhibitingemotional states that may undermine action (Kuhl, 1985). Emo-tional control also enables people to harness and use emotions tofacilitate decision making and problem solving (Salovey, Hsee, &Mayer, 1993), which ultimately should improve performance.

Social competence can affect a person’s performance in severalways. First, people may develop work skills and learn appropriaterole behaviors (e.g., how best to serve the needs of clients) on thebasis of their socially competent interactions with others (e.g.,Bauer & Green, 1994; Reichers, 1987). Second, greater socialcompetence should allow one to achieve better performance be-cause much of the work people perform requires the cooperation ofothers (Tsui, 1984). Third, greater social competence may help tobuild friendship networks and social support, which may be in-strumental in achieving success (e.g., R. A. Baron & Markman,2003). Some limited evidence (R. A. Baron & Markman, 2003)suggests that social competence does affect success in business.

Hypothesis 3: Feedback seeking, proactive behavior, emo-tional control, and social competence will positively predictsubsequent job performance.

On the basis of the above discussions of the effects of goalorientations and of the four specific SR tactics, we predicted that

the SR tactics would mediate the relationships between both learn-ing goal orientation and performance and performance-prove goalorientation and performance. Our mediated model is consistentwith the logic outlined above and with other theory. R. Kanfer andHeggestad (1997) stressed that goal choice is the first step toachieving performance, whereas the second step consists of pro-cesses involving SR tactics. Consistent with this, Zimmerman’s(2001) social–cognitive model of SR describes causal relationsamong three elements: goal cognitions predict SR tactics, whichare followed by judgments regarding one’s own performance.

Hypothesis 4: The relationships between learning and perfor-mance-prove goal orientations and subsequent job perfor-mance will be mediated by feedback seeking, proactive be-havior, emotional control, and social competence.

Method

Study Design

To test the hypotheses, we surveyed and collected subsequent perfor-mance data from salespeople working from virtual offices for a large,multinational, computer product and services organization. These partici-pants primarily worked remotely with a significant degree of autonomy.Salespeople were sent, via e-mail, a cover letter explaining the study alongwith the Internet link to the survey. The sample included 121 respondents,representing a 40% response rate. Our contact and a human resourcerepresentative at the sample organization confirmed statistically that thedemographics (age, gender, tenure, and race) of the sample were represen-tative of the nonrespondents in the sales division of this organization.

Of the 121 respondents, we were able to obtain the (sales) performancedata for 88 participants. The other participants, who had changed regionsor had been moved to sales positions that used different measures ofperformance, were dropped from the analyses. We conducted all analyseswith the 88 participants for whom we had complete data. There were nosignificant demographic or work history (e.g., tenure) differences betweenthese two samples.

Measures

Demographic characteristics. The sample was 44% women and 56%men, with ages ranging from 24 to 54 years (M � 37 years). Tenure withthe organization averaged 9 years 5 months and ranged from 11 months toover 32 years.

Predictor variables. Participants were asked to consider the last 6months in responding to the questions asking about their goal orientationand SR tactics. Learning goal orientation (� � .86) was measured withfour items asking salespeople the extent to which they valued developingtheir sales skills. Performance-prove goal orientation (� � .71) wasmeasured with four items that asked salespeople the extent to which theyvalued others knowing their sales accomplishments and the extent of theirconcern for performing better than others. Both the learning and perfor-mance-prove–focused goal orientation items were developed and validatedby Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar (1994) for their study of salespeople andsubsequently used by VandeWalle et al. (1999) in their study of sales-people. However, neither study included performance-avoid items.Performance-avoid goal orientation (� � .69) was measured with threeitems from VandeWalle (1997) that asked the extent to which people desireto avoid disproving their competence and to avoid negative judgmentsabout it. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) usingLISREL 8.53 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) on the goal orientation items totest whether the three dimensions were empirically valid. The preferred fitstatistics (and those that are not dependent on sample size)—root mean

187RESEARCH REPORTS

square error of approximation (RMSEA � .01), comparative fit index(CFI � .99), and incremental fit index (IFI � .99)—all fell (Gerbing &Anderson, 1992) in the acceptable range (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Thisthree-dimensional model was considerably better than the one- or two-dimensional models.

Mediating variables. Feedback seeking was measured with two itemsfrom Callister, Kramer, and Turban’s (1999) supervisor feedback (inquiry)scale (� � .86). One item is “I asked my supervisor if I was meeting all myjob requirements.” Proactive behavior was measured using five 7-pointitems (� � .80) from Bateman and Crant (1993). An example is “I alwayslooked for a better way to do things.” Emotional control was measuredwith the five items from Kuhl’s (1985) emotional control scale (� � .80).Items included “I put myself in the moods I needed in order to keep ontrack.” Social competence was measured with five items from R. A. Baronand Markman’s (2003) social competence scale (� � .85). Participantsrated items that included “I could usually read others well in terms of howthey felt in a given situation.”

We performed a CFA to determine whether the factors representing thetactics were statistically valid. This four-factor SR tactic model, built onthe established constructs and scales, achieved good model fit (RMSEA �.07, goodness-of-fit index � .90, CFI � .90) and was considerably betterthan a one-factor model of the SR tactics and other competing models.1

Dependent variable. Job performance was measured as the percentageof the sales quota met—the company’s objective measure of salespeople’sperformance—for the 6 months (two quarters) after the questionnaire wascompleted. In establishing the sales quotas, the organization attempted totake into account several factors that could affect performance, such as thesize of the salesperson’s territory, past client sales, previous salespersonperformance, and potential for new sales.

Results

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlationsamong all variables. With regard to Hypothesis 1, sales perfor-mance was positively related to learning goal orientation (r �.282, p � .05) and performance-prove goal orientation (r � .300,p � .01), as predicted, and negatively related to performance-avoidgoal orientation (r � �.286, p � .01).

To test Hypothesis 2, we performed a multivariate multipleregression analysis, regressing the SR tactics (feedback seeking,proactive behavior, emotional control, and social competence) onthe learning, performance-prove, and performance-avoid goal ori-entations. Hypothesis 2 was supported. The omnibus multivariatetest was strongly significant for learning goal orientation, F(7,80) � 5.05, p � .01. As shown in Table 2, learning goal orienta-tion significantly predicted three of the four SR tactics. As pre-

dicted, greater learning goal orientation predicted proactive behav-ior (� � .50, p � .001, R2 � .25), emotional control (� � .29, p �.05, R2 � .08), and social competence (� � .30, p � .05, R2 �.09). Greater learning goal orientation did not predict feedbackseeking in this analysis, although the bivariate correlation wassignificant. Performance-prove goal orientation also predicted theset of SR tactics, F(7, 80) � 4.05, p � .01. Performance-provegoal orientation predicted feedback seeking (� � .39, p � .01,R2 � .14) and proactive behavior (� � .35, p � .05, R2 � .12).Performance-avoid goal orientation was unrelated to the SRtactics.

To test how well the SR tactics predicted subsequent perfor-mance (Hypothesis 3), we conducted a multivariate multiple re-gression analysis, regressing the sales performance measure on theSR tactics. As a set, the SR tactics strongly predicted performance,F(4, 83) � 7.25, p � .001, R2 � .26. As shown in Table 3, theomnibus multivariate test indicated that three of the four SR tacticspredicted performance. Proactive behavior (� � .43, p � .001,R2 � .16) and social competence (� � .25, p � .05, R2 � .07)positively predicted performance, whereas emotional control neg-atively predicted performance (� � �.30, p � .01, R2 � .01).Feedback seeking was not related to performance.

To test whether the SR tactics mediated the relationships be-tween learning and performance-prove goal orientations and salesperformance (Hypothesis 4), we followed R. M. Baron and Ken-ny’s (1986) three-step mediation regression procedures. The firstrequirement is that the predictor variables (in this case, learningand performance-prove goal orientation) must be related to themediators (SR tactics). As shown in Table 2, this condition wasmet for learning goal orientation with proactive behavior, emo-tional control, and social competence and for performance-provegoal orientation with proactive behavior. Second, the predictorvariables must be related to the dependent variable. As shown inTable 1, this condition is evidenced by the positive correlations

1 In addition to conducting separate CFAs on the goal orientation andtactics items, we also conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) withvarimax rotation on the combined scales using the complete initial sample(N � 121; CFA was not used because of the poor item to sample size ratioeven using the largest available sample). The EFA yielded a good solutionthat replicated the a priori structure of the scales, providing some empiricalevidence that our participants distinguished the goal orientation and the SRtactics constructs.

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Independent and Dependent Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Learning goal orientation 5.77 0.62 (.84)2. Performance-prove goal orientation 5.58 0.81 .321** (.71)3. Performance-avoid goal orientation 1.93 0.93 �.334** �.199 (.69)4. Feedback seeking 4.16 1.68 .291** .385** �.137 (.88)5. Proactive behavior 5.26 0.75 .506** .349** �.286** .221* (.80)6. Emotional control 5.10 0.96 .289** .209* �.110 .319** .361** (.82)7. Social competence 5.41 0.84 .303** .271* �.132 .059 .370** .451** (.85)8. Performance 104.45 16.11 .282* .300** �.286** �.055 .399** �.051 .273* —

Note. Reliabilities are listed in parentheses on the diagonal.* p � .05. ** p � .01.

188 RESEARCH REPORTS

between performance and both learning and performance-provegoal orientations. Third, the effect of the predictor variables on thedependent variable must be significantly reduced or disappearwhen included in a regression with the mediating variables. Table4 shows the results of a hierarchical multivariate multiple regres-sion analysis in which performance was regressed on learning andperformance-prove goal orientations (entered first) followed by thethree significant SR tactics. As shown in Table 4, proactivebehavior, emotional control, and social competence remained sta-tistically significant, whereas the relationships between learningand performance-prove goal orientations and performancedisappeared.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated how people self-regulate in waysthat enhance their job performance. Zimmerman (2001) noted thatSR tactics are of “little value if people cannot motivate themselvesto use them” (p. 17). Of course, SR tactics are also of no valueunless they increase effectiveness. Our results revealed that learn-

ing and performance-prove goal orientations predicted SR tactics,several of which in turn predicted subsequent job performance.

Until recently, only two types of goal orientation were studied,with results generally showing positive effects of learning goalorientation and negative or neutral effects of performance goalorientation (cf. Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Parsing performancegoal orientation into performance-prove and performance-avoidtypes, as suggested by Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) and Vande-Walle (1997), revealed different effects in our study: Performance-prove goal orientation positively predicted sales performance,whereas performance-avoid goal orientation negatively predictedperformance. Furthermore, whereas VandeWalle and Cummings(1997) found a negative relationship between performance goalorientation and feedback seeking, we found that relationship to benegative only for performance-avoid goal orientation; perfor-mance-prove goal orientation was positively related to feedbackseeking. The general positive outcomes commonly associated withlearning orientation are supported in this study, but performance-prove orientation had some positive effects as well; it was perfor-mance-avoid orientation that was not beneficial.

Elliot and colleagues (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot &McGregor, 1999) proposed that the optimal framework for indi-viduals may be the simultaneous adoption of the two approachorientations (learning and performance-prove) and the absence ofthe performance-avoid goal orientation. They suggested furtherthat learning and performance-prove goal orientations may belonger and shorter term facilitators of performance, respectively.Previous research had not demonstrated whether these two goalorientations can function effectively together (Elliot & McGregor,1999). Our study sheds some light on this issue, providing evi-dence that learning and performance-prove goal orientations canfunction effectively together, particularly with employed adults insales positions and autonomous work settings. Both learning andperformance-prove goal orientations predicted proactive behavior,but learning goal orientation predicted emotional intelligence tac-tics whereas performance-prove goal orientation predicted a dif-ferent SR tactic, feedback seeking.

Performance-prove goal orientation may prompt feedback seek-ing due to impression management motivations (e.g., asking forfeedback to convey that they care more than others or to strategi-

Table 2Multivariate Regression Analysis for Self-Management Tacticson Learning, Performance-Prove, and Performance-Avoid GoalOrientation

Variable � F(4, 83)

Learning goal orientation

Feedback seeking .29 2.80Proactive behavior .50 16.33***Emotional control .29 4.69*Social competence .30 4.39*

Performance-prove goal orientation

Feedback seeking .39 9.56**Proactive behavior .35 4.14*Emotional control .21 1.37Social competence .27 3.13

Performance-avoid goal orientation

Feedback seeking �.14 0.01Proactive behavior �.29 1.31Emotional control �.11 0.01Social competence �.13 0.02

* p � .05. ** p � .01. *** p � .001.

Table 3Regression of Performance on the Self-Management Tactics

Variable � t(83)

Feedback seeking �.07 �0.69Proactive behavior .43 4.05**Emotional control �.30 �2.61*Social competence .25 2.29*

Note. R2 � .26; adjusted R2 � .22; F(4, 83) � 7.25, p � .01.* p � .05. ** p � .01.

Table 4Analysis of Mediation for Learning and Performance-ProveGoal Orientation and Performance Using HierarchicalRegression

VariableR2

model

Changein R2

block � t(82)

Block 1 .13Learning goal orientation .21 1.94*Performance-prove goal orientation .23 2.19*

Block 2 .29 .16**Learning goal orientation .09 0.80Performance-prove goal orientation .16 1.60Proactive behavior .33 2.88**Emotional control �.34 �3.10**Social competence .23 2.10*

* p � .05. ** p � .01.

189RESEARCH REPORTS

cally prompt supervisors to discover or acknowledge high perfor-mance). This explanation is plausible in part because our sampleroutinely received high levels of feedback from a variety of dif-ferent sources, making feedback seeking unnecessary. Further-more, if feedback seeking was used as an impression managementtechnique, this also would explain the lack of a relationship be-tween learning goal orientation and feedback seeking. Future re-search in other job contexts might explore more fully when andwhy these goal orientations motivate different SR tactics.

Our study extends VandeWalle et al.’s (1999) work, as calledfor by several scholars (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 1999; R. Kanfer,1990; VandeWalle et al., 1999), by including several previouslyuntested SR tactics and finding that these tactics mediate therelationship between learning and performance-prove goal orien-tations and sales performance. In addition to demonstrating howgoal orientations influence SR processes, our results identifiedwhich SR tactics enhance performance. Proactive behavior andsocial competence positively predicted performance, whereasemotional control negatively predicted performance. Social com-petence operated as a suppressor variable (cf. J. Cohen, Cohen,West, & Aiken, 2003) in the latter relationship, which was insig-nificant as a zero-order correlation but significant as a regressionparameter when social competence was in the equation. The pos-itive and negative consequences of emotional control, studied asspecific tactics in different circumstances and in operation withother variables, represent a potentially fruitful avenue for futureresearch.

One limitation of this study is that many of the variables weremeasured using employee self-reports. However, self-reports areless problematic than some critics maintain and are appropriatewhen the respondent can validly assess the constructs (Crampton& Wagner, 1994). Moreover, our dependent variable was an ob-jective, lagged measure of performance. The lagged measure ofperformance improves the confidence with which we can interpretcausality, but unmeasured variables could have affected the rela-tionships and should be controlled in future research. For example,intelligence or education might be correlated with particular goalorientations and SR tactics.

Another limitation involves the generalizability of the results.First, although the study had sufficient power to reveal importanteffects, the small sample size could have affected the mediationresults. With a large sample, the small but positive parameters forlearning (95% confidence interval [CI] � �3.57, 8.36) and per-formance-prove goal orientations (95% CI � �0.83, 7.52) couldbecome statistically significant, indicating partial rather than com-plete mediation and either direct effects of goal orientations or theoperation of additional mediators not measured in this study.Second, effective SR may depend on the nature of the job and thetechnology it involves (Tsui & Ashford, 1994). As examples, theimportance of feedback seeking may vary depending on levels ofexisting feedback and the ability of others to provide useful feed-back, and performance-prove goal orientation may be less impor-tant when performance measures are more ambiguous than thoseof our sample. The salespeople in this study had precise perfor-mance goals that allowed simple comparisons of their own per-formance against a standard, against past performance, and againsttheir self-set goals—and upon which rewards were clearly contin-gent. In addition, the relative strength of different goal orientationsmay change depending on the tasks and situations. Within-subjects

designs that consider goal orientations toward multiple tasks andlongitudinal designs that assess changes in goal orientation assituations change would provide information that is useful towardfurther understanding the dynamics of these processes. In additionto studying standard types of jobs and work environments, futureresearch should address SR strategies and tactics in circumstancesin which implementing them and achieving success are particu-larly challenging and important. Such circumstances include (a)serious problems such as organizational tragedies (Weick, 2003)and other situations requiring strong resilience (Sutcliffe & Vogus,2003) and (b) important opportunities that can be realized onlythrough positive deviance (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003) or tran-scendent behavior (Bateman & Porath, 2003).

Managers presumably can help facilitate learning and perfor-mance-prove goal orientations, reduce performance-avoid goalorientation, and help individuals build and use the SR tactics thatcontribute to personal effectiveness and well-being (Cameron,Dutton, & Quinn, 2003). Specific recommendations hinge onfuture research that tests the generalizability of the findings in thisstudy and that identifies how best to train goal orientation and SRtactics. However, we know that people are not always aware ofuseful SR strategies or when and how to apply them (Ames, 1992);that training programs can help employees develop greater socialcompetence in ways that increase performance (Hays, 1999); andthat leaders can craft contexts that stimulate, enable, and sustaineffective SR (S. G. Cohen, Chang, & Ledford, 1997; Kerr, Hill, &Broeding, 1986). The best approaches may be those that makeclear which SR tactics are most instrumental toward successfulperformance and that strengthen self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997)with respect to enacting these tactics.

Conclusion

SR is far more than stoic willpower during goal pursuit: Itrequires strategic thought and action (Mischel & Mendoza-Denton,2003). We did not assume that the constructs measured here arestable personality traits—we consider them to be manageablebehaviors. Goal orientation, for example, appears to have bothdispositional and situational components (Button et al., 1996; Farret al., 1993; Kozlowski et al., 2001) and therefore may be amalleable construct that individuals can use strategically to betterself-regulate. Purely dispositional approaches typically do not con-sider underlying processes or dynamics that may be essential forunderstanding how people respond to different situations and fordeveloping effective interventions (Aspinwall & Staudinger,2003). Effective SR, like human strengths in general (Aspinwall &Staudinger, 2003), may lie primarily in the ability to flexibly applyas many different resources and skills as necessary to achieve agoal.

SR is increasingly an important topic in the new organizationalera (Rousseau, 1997). We emphasize people’s volition in control-ling their personal effectiveness. This study and other SR researchcontribute to the burgeoning positive psychology literature, whichstresses the development and maximization of people’s strengthsand psychological capabilities (e.g., Cameron et al., 2003; Selig-man, 2002). A science of SR must avoid the pitfalls and realize thepotential of positive approaches to behavioral and organizationalsciences (Cameron et al., 2003). In this pursuit, scholars canidentify the most effective strategies and tactics under different

190 RESEARCH REPORTS

circumstances and find the best ways to help people recognize boththeir own behavioral patterns and how they can think and behavedifferently to attain desired goals (Mischel & Mendoza-Denton,2003).

References

Alexander, K. L., & Entwistle, D. R. (1988). Achievement in the first 2years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society forResearch on Child Development, 53(2, Serial No. 218).

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.

Ammons, R. B. (1956). Effects of knowledge of performance: A surveyand tentative theoretical formulation. Journal of General Psychology,54, 279–299.

Anderson, J. G., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling inpractice: A review and recommended two-step approach. PsychologicalBulletin, 107, 238–246.

Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. M. (2003). Reflections on thelooking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior inorganizations. Journal of Management, 29, 773–799.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individualresource: Personal strategies of creating information. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.

Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effec-tiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Academy of ManagementReview, 34, 251–280.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (2003). A psychology of humanstrengths: Some central issues of an emerging field. In L. G. Aspinwall& U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Funda-mental questions and future directions for a positive psychology (pp.9–22). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:Freeman.

Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2003). Beyond social capital: The roleof entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success. Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 18, 41–60.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173–1182.

Bateman, T., & Crant, M. (1993). The proactive component of organiza-tional behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.

Bateman, T., & Porath, C. L. (2003). Transcendent behavior. In K. S.Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizationalscholarship (pp. 122–137). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1994). Effect of newcomer involvement inwork-related activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79, 211–223.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability:Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 87, 497–505.

Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content aspredictors of performance in a training program. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 84, 863–873.

Button, S., Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1996). Goal orientation in organiza-tional behavior research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26–48.

Callister, R. R., Kramer, M. W., & Turban, D. B. (1999). Feedback seekingfollowing career transitions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 429–438.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations ofpositive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, &R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 3–13). SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multipleregression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, S. G., Chang, L., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1997). A hierarchicalconstruct of self-management leadership and its relationship to quality ofwork life and perceived group effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 50,275–308.

Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A., III. (1994). Percept–percept inflation inmicroorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect.Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.

Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective jobperformance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology,80, 532–537.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Man-agement, 26, 435–462.

Depreeuw, E. (1992). On the fear of failure construct: Active and passivetest anxious students behave differently. In K. Hagtvet & T. Johnsen(Eds.), Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu (pp.289–305). New York: Academic Press.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social–cognitive approach tomotivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievementgoals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approachand avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 72, 218–232.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidanceachievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchicalmodel of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76, 628–644.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals,study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journalof Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563.

Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation:A personal goals analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 73, 171–185.

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

Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal orientationand action control theory: Implications for industrial and organizationalpsychology. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology, 8, 193–232.

Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort andgoal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51,397–420.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Astudy of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examina-tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150–170.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations ofgoodness of fit indices for structural equation models. SociologicalMethods & Research, 21, 132–160.

Hays, S. (1999). American Express taps into the power of emotionalintelligence. Workforce, 78, 72–74.

Helmreich, R. L., & Spence, J. T. (1978). The Work And Family Orien-tation Questionnaire: An objective instrument to assess components ofachievement motivation and attitudes toward family and career. JSASCatalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 35.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equationmodeling with the SIMPLIS command language [Computer software].Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

Kanfer, F. H., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Motivational skills and self-

191RESEARCH REPORTS

regulation for learning: A trait perspective. Learning and IndividualDifferences, 8, 185–210.

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation and individual differences in learning: Anintegration of developmental, differential and cognitive perspectives.Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 221–239.

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: Aperson centered approach to work motivation. Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, 19, 1–56.

Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self regulation: A systems view. AnnualReview of Psychology, 44, 23–52.

Kerr, S., Hill, K. D., & Broeding, L. (1986). The first line external leader:Phasing out or here to stay? Academy of Management Review, 11,103–117.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M.,& Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientationtraits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adapt-ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85,1–31.

Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognition–behavior consistency:Self-regulatory processes and action vs. state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J.Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp.101–128). New York: Springer-Verlag.

London, M., Larsen, H. H., & Thisted, L. N. (1999). Relationships betweenfeedback and self-development. Group and Organization Management,24, 5–27.

Martocchio, J. J. (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety,self-efficacy, and learning in training. Journal of Applied Psychology,79, 819–825.

McGregor, H., & Elliot, A. (1999). Orienting to and preparing for exam-inations: An achievement goals analysis. Unpublished manuscript.

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration oflack of ability: An unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 89, 710–718.

Mischel, W., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2003). Harnessing willpower andsocioemotional intelligence to enhance human agency and potential. InL. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of humanstrengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positivepsychology (pp. 245–256). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types,modes, source. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557–589.

Patrick, H., Yoon, K. S., & Murphy, A. M. (1995, March–April). Person-ality traits, social competence, and early school adjustment: A contex-tual and developmental perspective. Paper presented at the Society forResearch in Child Development biennial conference, Indianapolis, IN.

Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer social-ization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278–287.

Rousseau, D. M. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizationalera. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 515–546.

Salovey, P., Hsee, C. K., & Mayer, J. D. (1993). Emotional intelligence andthe self-regulation of affect. In D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker(Eds.), Handbook of mental control (pp. 258–277). Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schneider, R. J., Ackerman, P. L., & Kanfer, R. (1996). To “act wisely in

human relations”: Exploring the dimensions of social competence. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 21, 469–481.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personalityand career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427.

Seligman, M. E. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positivepsychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York:Free Press.

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

Spreitzer, G., & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive deviance. In K. S. Cam-eron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizationalscholarship (pp. 207–224). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

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

Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S.Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizationalscholarship (pp. 94–110). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Tsui, A. S. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organi-zational Behavior and Human Performance, 36, 64–96.

Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A processview of managerial effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20, 93–121.

Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Self-regulation in organizational settings: A taleof two paradigms. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 303–341). San Diego: Academic Press.

VandeWalle, D. M. (1997). Development and validation of a work domaingoal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 8, 995–1015.

VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1999).The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on salesperformance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology,84, 249–259.

VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (2001). The role of goalorientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 86, 629–640.

VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goalorientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 82, 390–400.

VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S. P. (2000).An integrated model of feedback-seeking behavior: Disposition, context,and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 996–1003.

Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic process of mental control. PsychologicalReview, 101, 34–52.

Weick, K. E. (2003). Positive organizing and organizational tragedy. InK. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organiza-tional scholarship (pp. 66–80). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Attaining self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P.Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–35).San Diego: Academic Press.

Received October 14, 2003Revision received October 8, 2004

Accepted October 14, 2004 �

192 RESEARCH REPORTS