|
|
|
| The Influence of Learning Goal Orientation on Employee Creativity:A Meta-analytic Structural Equation Model |
| Ding Chen1,Wang Shaogong2,Zhao Shuming1 |
| (1.School of Business, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China;2.School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract As an important factor affecting employees' cognition and behaviors, learning goal orientation has an indirect impact on employee creativity. It is quite necessary and possible to clarify its explanation mechanism and boundary conditions.By reflecting on the different perspectives of existing empirical studies, it shows that the research results of learning goal orientation and employee creativity vary in identified linear correlation, inverted U-shaped correlation and S-shaped correlation. This paper assesses these different conclusions to clarify the effects on employee creativity caused by different levels of learning goal orientation. When it comes to the explanation mechanism between learning goal orientation and its influence on employee creativity, recent studies use a single theory perspective, either social cognitive theory or knowledge management theory as their analytical framework. Social cognitive theory attaches great importance on employee confidence, but fails to illustrate how employee confidence transforms into actions of employee creativity. Knowledge management theory stresses the actions taken by employees, but also ignores how learning goal orientation changes into actions on employee creativity. Combining both social cognitive theory and knowledge management theory as theoretical framework, this paper aims to better explicate the relationship between learning goal orientation and employee creativity. #br#Further, recent research has not paid sufficient attention to the moderating effect of learning goal orientation. This paper focuses on how situational and measurement factors impact existing conclusions and identifies the boundary conditions of learning goal orientation influence on employee creativity. Among situational factors, employee characteristics divide micro-situations among the participants; corporate characteristics help identify meso-situations of participants′ creativity; and cultural background indicates how macro-situations affect participants′ thoughts and behaviors. Among the measurement factors, analysis of measurement tools and measurement methods provides insights into the dynamic relationship between variables.#br#A meta-analysis helps combine the existing independent research results and enable researchers to research the boundary conditions while controlling participants' characteristics as well as to testify the explanation mechanism through matrix computation of a structural equation model. On the basis of 83 empirical studies and 87 independent samples, this study uses Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) 2.0 to analyze the relationship between learning goal orientation and employee creativity at individual and team levels. ANOVA is used in the meta-analysis to calculate average effect size in each group and research the moderating effects of individual characteristics, corporate characteristics, cultural background and the measurement factors comprising measurement tools and measurement methods; and the mediating effect of creative self-efficacy and knowledge sharing through meta-analytic structural equation models (MASEM) are explored with the help of Amos 26.0.#br#The results show that firstly there is a significant positive correlation between learning goal orientation and employee creativity. The level of learning goal orientation differentiates its influence, and the correlation coefficient at the team level is greater. However, learning goal orientation at the team level is not a simple aggregation at the individual level, but forms a kind of learning goal orientation that pays attention to the cognition of the overall goal. Secondly learning goal orientation produces a positive effect on employee creativity by raising creative self-efficacy or promoting knowledge sharing. Besides, there is an internal chain mediating relationship between creative self-efficacy and knowledge sharing or creative self-efficacy can promote knowledge sharing, further raising employee creativity. Thirdly situational factors, comprising of individual characteristics, corporate characteristics and cultural background, have a significant impact on the main effect. With situational factors like Neozoic employees, knowledge workers, high-tech enterprises, enterprises in developed regions and enterprises in China, learning goal orientation has a positive influence on employee creativity. Fourthly the moderating effect of measurement tools and methods is prominent. Vandewalle scale has the closet correlation with the practice of corporate management. Common measurement is likely to cause common method biases, while measuring with time interval can reduce common method bias effectively, providing a more reliable reflection of dynamic relationship between different variables.#br#This paper is conducted not only to find the theoretical basis for the relationship between learning goal orientation and employee creativity, but also to offer guidelines for the practice of learning goal orientation in creativity management. The results recommend that a company′s human resource departments should pay attention to an employee′s learning goal orientation capacity and cultivate this capacity steadily. Further, the company should be well prepared in spiritual resourcing employee creativity, establish an internal knowledge sharing system andencourage the knowledge sharing to induce creative thoughts. Finally, the company should make a proper plan for cultivating learning goal orientation capacity based on factors like employee and corporate characteristics.#br#
|
|
Received: 18 August 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] LEE H H, YANG T T. Employee goal orientation, work unit goal orientation and employee creativity[J]. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2015, 24(4):659-674.
[2] AMABILE T M. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations[J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1988, 10(10):123-167.
[3] 薛宪方，褚珊珊，宁晓梅. 创业团队目标导向、内隐协调与创造力的关系研究[J]. 应用心理学, 2017, 23(4):336-344.
[4] SACKETT P R, LIEVENS F, VAN IDDEKINGE C H, et al. Individual differences and their measurement: a review of 100 years of research[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2017, 102(3): 254.
[5] 杨洪涛，肖峥嵘. 团队成员和主管目标导向对个人创造力的跨层次影响[J].管理学报, 2017, 14(9):1340-1350.
[6] HIRST G, KNIPPENBERG D V, CHEN C H, et al. How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity： a cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54(3):624-641.
[7] GONG Y, KIM T Y, LEE D R, et al. A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2013,56(3):827-851.
[8] GONG Y, HUANG J C, FARH J L. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2009, 52(4):765-778.
[9] 曹洲涛, 李语嫣. 员工创新行为缘何不同:成就目标导向对员工创新行为影响的双路径研究[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2021, 38(1):140-148.
[10] 夏瑞卿. 目标导向对员工创造力的影响机理研究[D]. 南京：南京大学, 2014.
[11] 周小兰. 认知视角下团队成就目标导向对团队学习的影响研究[J]. 软科学, 2017, 31(1):90-94.
[12] STASIELOWICZ L. Goal orientation and performance adaptation: a meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Research in Personality, 2019, 82: 103847.
[13] 苏中兴, 段佳利. 同源主观数据是否膨胀了变量间的相关性——以战略人力资源管理研究为例[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2015, 68(6):83-92.
[14] 胡翔, 李燕萍, 李泓锦. 新生代员工:心态积极还是忿忿难平——基于工作价值观的满意感产生机制研究[J]. 经济管理, 2014, 36(7):69-79.
[15] BHATT G D.Management strategies for individual knowledge and organizational knowledge[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2002, 6(1):31-39.
[16] 张文勤, 石金涛, 刘云. 团队成员创新行为的两层影响因素:个人目标取向与团队创新气氛[J]. 南开管理评论, 2010, 13(5):22-30.
[17] 江辛, 王永跃, 温巧巧. 学习目标导向对员工创新行为的作用机制研究[J]. 科研管理, 2018, 39(10):100-107.
[18] DWECK C S. Motivational processes affecting learning [J]. American Psychologist, 1986, 41(10): 1040-1048.
[19] VANDEWALLE D. Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument[J]. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1997, 57(6):995-1015.
[20] ELLIOT A J, MCGREGOR H A. A 2x2 achievement goal framework[J]. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2001, 80(3): 501-519.
[21] CELLAR D F, STUHLMACHER A F, YOUNG S K, et al. Trait goal orientation, self-regulation, and performance: a meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2011, 26(4): 467- 483.
[22] HARACKIEWICZ J M, BARRON K E, PINTRICH P R, et al. Revision of achievement goal theory: necessary and illuminating[J]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2002, 94(3):638-645.
[23] AMABILE T M, CONTI R, COON H, et al. Assessing the work environment for creativity[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1996, 39(5): 1154-1184.
[24] 陈晓萍, 沈伟. 组织与管理研究的实证方法[M]. 第3版.北京: 北京大学出版社, 2018: 337-361.
[25] SONG W, YU H, ZHANG Y, et al. Goal orientation and employee creativity: the mediating role of creative role identity[J]. Journal of Management & Organization, 2015,21(1): 82-97.
[26] 张文勤, 孙锐. 考虑时间因素的研发团队目标取向与团队绩效的关系研究[J]. 中国人力资源开发, 2016, 30(1):73-79.
[27] 管建世, 罗瑾琏, 钟竞. 动态环境下双元领导对团队创造力影响研究——基于团队目标取向视角[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2016, 37(8):159-169.
[28] JEFFREY A M. 管理与组织研究必读的40个理论[M].徐世勇, 李超平,译.北京：北京大学出版社, 2017：228-234.
[29] BANDURA A. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001, 52(1): 1-26.
[30] 邱均平, 段宇锋. 论知识管理与竞争情报[J]. 图书情报工作, 2000,45(4):11-14.
[31] NONAKA I, TAKEUCHI H. The knowledge creating company[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1995,23(1):995.
[32] TURULJA L, BAJGORIC N. Knowledge acquisition, knowledge application, and innovation towards the ability to adapt to change[J]. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2018, 14(2): 1-15.
[33] 许慧, 郭丕斌, 暴丽艳. 组织创新支持对科研人员创新行为的影响——基于创新自我效能感、知识共享的链式中介效应[J]. 科技管理研究, 2021, 41(8):124-131.
[34] ARTHUR J R, BENNETT W, HUFFCUTT AI. Conducting meta-analysis using SAS[M]. Mahwah: Psychology Press, 2001：1-50.
[35] D'AMATO A, BARUCH Y. Cultural and generational predictors of learning goal orientation: a multilevel analysis of managers across 20 countries[J]. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 2020, 20(2):14-26.
[36] 黄玉梅, 孙海法. 中国文化背景下的团队学习行为研究[J]. 商业经济与管理, 2017, 37(3):29-39.
[37] BUTTON S B, MATHIEU J E, ZAJAC D M. Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation[J]. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 2007, 67(1):26-48.
[38] LIPSEY M W, WILSON D B. Practical meta-analysis[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
[39] JAK S, CHEUNG M W L. Testing moderator hypotheses in meta-analytic structural equation modeling using subgroup analysis[J]. Behavior Research Methods, 2018, 50(4): 1359-1373.
[40] SCHMIDT F L, HUNTER J E. Methods of meta-analysis: correcting error and bias in research findings[M]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 2014.
[41] ROTHSTEIN H R, SUTTON A J, BORENSTEIN M. Publication bias in meta-analysis[M]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2005.
[42] KISAMORE J L, BRANNICK M T. An illustration of the consequences of meta-analysis model choice[J]. Organizational Research Methods, 2008, 11(1): 35-53.
[43] COHEN J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences[J]. Technimetrics, 1988, 31(334):499-500.
[44] PODSAKOFF P M, ORGAN D W. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects[J]. Journal of Management, 1986, 12(4): 531-544.
[45] YPEREN N V, BLAGA M, POSTMES T. A meta-analysis of the impact of situationally induced achievement goals on task performance[J]. Human Performance, 2015, 28(2):165-182.
|
|
|
|
