Goal orientation and employee resistance at work - Wiley Online Library

611

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2016), 89, 611–633 © 2016 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Goal orientation and employee resistance at work: Implications for manager emotional exhaustion with the employee Joan F. Brett1*, Mary Uhl-Bien2, Lei Huang3 and Melissa Carsten4 1

W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA Neeley School of Business Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, USA 3 Raymond J. Harbert College of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA 4 Winthrop University College of Business Administration, Rock Hill, South Caroline, USA 2

This study advances our understanding of goal orientation (GO) theory by relating GO to manager outcomes (i.e., manager emotional exhaustion with the employee) through interpersonal behaviour patterns (i.e., employee resistance). Specifically, we examine the mediating effect of constructive and dysfunctional resistance (DR) on the relationships between GO and manager emotional exhaustion with the employee. The findings from 565 manager–employee dyads in a Chinese company indicate that learning GO (LGO) and performance-prove GO (PPGO) are positively related to constructive resistance (CR), and performance-avoid GO (PAGO) is negatively related to CR and positively related to DR. CR and DR significantly mediate the relationships between LGO and PAGO and manager emotional exhaustion with the employee. The findings are discussed in terms of the importance of GO theory for understanding interpersonal behaviours and manager outcomes.

Practitioner points First, organizations should educate and sensitize managers to the motivational orientations their employees bring to the workplace so that managers can better shape work experiences and challenges in ways that allow employees to attain their goal orientation (GO)-related goals (e.g., avoid embarrassment, insure positive evaluations) without jeopardizing important interactions with others. Second, before managers coach employees with a performance-avoid GO on how to provide constructive feedback and the benefits of doing so, they may set the stage by discussing how avoidance behaviours may lead to future embarrassment or negative evaluations rather than to prevent these outcomes. Managers can foster work climates that value learning and development and reward employees for offering constructive resistance rather than avoidance behaviours. Third, the findings linking GO with manager emotional exhaustion with the employee clearly indicate that the personal consequences for a manager make it worth their time and effort to coach employees on more adaptive and constructive behaviours.

Goal orientation (GO) theory offers important understanding regarding individuals’ adaptive or maladaptive self-regulatory behaviours in achievement settings (Button, *Correspondence should be addressed to Joan F. Brett, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4906, USA (email: [email protected]). DOI:10.1111/joop.12144

612

Joan F. Brett et al.

Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Day, Yeo, & Radosevich, 2003; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Dweck, 1986; Johnson, Shull, & Wallace, 2011; VandeWalle, 1997). In the 20+ years since its introduction, research consistently shows that GO influences individuals’ cognitively oriented self-regulatory tactics (e.g., effort, self-set goals, self-efficacy, persistence, affect, learning strategies, feedback-seeking; Dierdorff & Ellington, 2012; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007; Porath & Bateman, 2006) and that GO predicts job performance above and beyond personality variables (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Payne et al., 2007). Despite this, little is known about the relationship between GO and individuals’ self-regulatory tactics in interpersonal interactions with others (Sommet et al., 2014), particularly managers. An exception is Janssen and Van Yperen (2004), who found that employees with a learning GO (LGO) report higher-quality exchange with their supervisors and employees with a performance orientation report lower-quality exchange. Because they did not examine the mediators of these relationships, however, it is unclear how GO is related to the behavioural patterns employees use when engaging with managers, or how managers respond to these behaviours. This omission is significant considering the importance of interactions that take place between subordinates and managers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Interpersonal relationships are an important source of stress in the workplace (Frone, 2000; Leiter & Maslach, 1988; Leiter & Stright, 2009). For managers, employees’ adaptive and maladaptive selfregulatory behaviours associated with GO may be a particular source of stress. That is because managers rely on employees to achieve important work goals, while employee behaviour, driven by GO, may support or impede the accomplishment of task objectives. Drawing upon the Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory (Hobfoll, 2011), we argue that managers will seek to conserve resources (i.e., physical and emotional energy, control, self-efficacy) that safeguard them against strain and burnout. In considering adaptive and maladaptive behaviour patterns, it could be that constructive employee behaviours help managers to conserve resources in ways that buffer against strain and exhaustion (Ng & Feldman, 2012), while destructive employee behaviours cause managers to expend emotional resources (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014), leading to greater frustration and burnout. Goal orientation theory can be helpful in explaining why some employees will be more difficult or frustrating to interact with than others. GOs have been found to shape self-perceptions of ability, internal/external standards, approach/avoidance motivation (Dweck, 1986; Elliott & Dweck, 1988), and openness to risk and change in ways that have implications for how individuals interact with managers in the attainment of their goals. As described in Payne et al. (2007), however, these issues have not been tested in the literature. Research in the related domain of achievement goal theory (Darnon, Dompnier, & Poortvliet, 2012; Sommet et al., 2014) provides some insight regarding the relationship between learning and performance-prove orientations and individuals’ interpersonal interactions (e.g., information exchanged, deception in exchanges, cooperation/competition, conflict strategies) (Darnon, Doll, & Butera, 2007; Darnon et al., 2012; Poortvliet, Anseel, Janssen, Van Yperen, & Van de Vliert, 2012; Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012). Yet, this research does not address how performance-avoidance goals are related to interpersonal interactions, and has not examined the impact of these interactions on others. In addition, GO is associated not only with how individuals set goals, but also with individuals’ work beliefs and mental frameworks. Therefore, we need to expand GO theory to investigate how GO influences interpersonal interactions in more ways than through the specific goals individuals pursue.

Goal orientation, resistance, and manager exhaustion

613

In expanding GO theory, we consider how employees behave while interacting with their manager, and the toll these behaviours can take on the manager. We selected employee resistance as our focal behaviour for several reasons. Resistance is an intensely studied OB construct that represents a disagreement with, or reluctance to follow, the directives of a supervisor. It can take the form of either constructive or dysfunctional resistance (DR; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001). Constructive resistance (CR) denotes individuals’ reaction to influence attempts by focusing on the task at hand and how one can improve a directive to attain enhanced outcomes (Farrell, 1983; Tepper et al., 2001). DR reflects an avoidance approach of silent non-compliance in which employees ignore requests or simply refuse to follow a manager’s directive. We propose that employee resistance may be a source of emotional exhaustion (Leiter & Stright, 2009) for managers. Manager emotional exhaustion with an employee captures the depletion of emotional energy and resources experienced by a manager as a result of interacting with an employee (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996). Whereas most research on burnout focuses almost exclusively on supervisors or coworkers as sources of employee burnout and exhaustion (Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O’Boyle, 2012; Fernet, Gagne, & Austin, 2010; Halbesleben, 2006; Huang, Chan, Lam, & Nan, 2010), we focus on employee behaviour as a source of manager emotional exhaustion (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). We expect that just as demanding interactions with a manager cause stress for an employee, employee behavioural patterns can create emotional exhaustion for the manager (Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993). The purpose of the present study therefore was to investigate whether GO is associated with constructive and DR patterns that mediate the relationship between GO and managers’ feelings of emotional exhaustion in dealing with a subordinate. In so doing, our research makes a number of contributions to GO theory and the literatures on employee resistance and emotional exhaustion. First, this study is one of the first to examine the role of GO theory in interpersonal behaviours (i.e., employee resistance behaviours) and the related consequences of these interpersonal patterns (i.e., manager emotional exhaustion with the employee). This moves GO theory beyond the task-related proximal outcomes (such as goals or action plans) and distal learning and performancerelated outcomes (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Payne et al., 2007) to capture the interpersonal aspect of what it is like to work with the employee. Second, rather than focusing on employee resistance strategies as outcomes of unfair treatment from leaders (e.g., abusive supervision, Tepper et al., 2001), our study advances the resistance literature by investigating the influence of employees’ motivational GOs on their use of resistance strategies with a manager. This opens new avenues for understanding the motivation behind employees’ resistance to leaders’ initiatives. Third, rather than a generalized view of exhaustion, we consider how specific interactions with even one person can deplete resources for a manager. In this way, our study draws attention to manager emotional exhaustion as an important but neglected variable in the burnout literature (Byrne et al., 2014; DeWall, Baumeister, Mead, & Vohs, 2011). The overarching theoretical model for our study is presented in Figure 1.

GO and resistance behaviour patterns The theoretical framework underlying GO describes how this disposition may influence interpersonal behaviours and social interactions (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Farr, Hofmann, & Ringenbach, 1993). Research has identified three types of GOs: LGO – a desire to develop mastery through learning, seeking challenges, expending effort,

614


Learning Goal Orientation

+ _

Performance Prove Goal Orientation

Constructive Resistance

Manager Exhaustion with Employee

_ _ _

Performance Avoid Goal Orientation

_

Dysfunctional Resistance

+

+

Figure 1. Proposed model of goal orientation (GO), resistance, and manager exhaustion with employee.

persisting, and acquiring new skills; performance-prove GO (PPGO) – a desire to prove competence to gain favourable evaluations; and performance-avoid GO (PAGO) – a desire to avoid displays of incompetence that could lead to negative judgements from others (Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014; Dragoni & Kuenzi, 2012; Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu, 2013; VandeWalle, 1997). More recently researchers in achievement goal theory have begun to focus on a 2 (approach/avoid) 9 2 (mastery/performance) framework to explain the types of mastery or performance goals individuals create (Baranik, Stanley, Bynum, & Lance, 2010; Van Mierlo & Van Hooft, 2015). However, because our interest is in understanding interpersonal behaviour and outcomes of such behaviour, we build on theory denoting the broader psychological mechanisms underlying the three dispositions in the GO framework (e.g., Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014; Dragoni & Kuenzi, 2012) to help us understand why people behave interpersonally as they do. The psychological mechanisms underlying dispositional GO theory are based on differences in one’s implicit view of their own ability (i.e., fixed vs. incremental), a concern with internal or external standards, and an approach versus avoidance perspective (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). For example, individuals higher in LGO will adopt interactions associated with an incremental or developmental view of ability (mastery), a focus on internal standards (i.e., learning and mastery), and an approach perspective to achievement (i.e., seeking to attain mastery). According to Dweck (1986), LGO is associated with an adaptive response pattern in which individuals persist in the face of difficulties, exert effort, engage in solutionoriented activities, show willingness to take risk, and enjoy challenges in order to meet an intrapersonal standard. Conversely, individuals higher in PPGO or PAGO will engage in interactions based on a fixed (entity) view of ability, a concern with external standards (i.e., evaluation), and differing approach/avoidance perspectives. They differ in that those with PPGO act to attain positive evaluations from others, positive social comparisons and validation of performance, while those with PAGO act to avoid negative self-evaluations or embarrassing themselves (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; VandeWalle, 1997). As described by VandeWalle and Cummings (1997), performance orientation is associated with higher ego and self-presentation costs; therefore, individuals higher in PPGO will act to secure ego-confirming evidence, while those higher in PAGO will avoid risky behaviours that could lead to negative evaluations.


615

The three psychological mechanisms underlying GO (i.e., implicit view of ability, focus on standards, and approach/avoid) are useful in that they can help us develop theoretical rationale for understanding why employees will adopt adaptive or maladaptive behaviour patterns in engaging with their managers. Below, we discuss these patterns relative to constructive and dysfunctional resistance.

Resistance Resistance is described as a strategy used by individuals to reflect nonconformity to a manager (Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Tepper et al., 2001; Yukl, 2002). When employees are confronted by what they perceive as unreasonable requests, they may choose to resist using either constructive or dysfunctional strategies (Tepper et al., 2001). CR is an active, approach-oriented behaviour aimed at improving the situation (Tepper et al., 2001, 2006) or expressing nonconformity with it. Subordinates using CR explain to managers that the request may not produce the expected results or offer a better approach (Tepper et al., 2001; Yukl, 2002). DR is a passive-aggressive, avoidant behaviour based on noncompliance with a request. Subordinates using DR avoid compliance with managers’ requests by simply refusing to follow the manager’s directive, pretending not to hear it, or ignoring the request (Tepper et al., 2001, 2006). Resistance differs from similar constructs that may include ‘speaking-up’ behaviour such as voice and proactivity, as resistance is a response by an employee to a perceived unreasonable request from a manager (Tepper et al., 2001), whereas voice and proactivity include taking initiative to solve problems or suggest new ideas not necessarily in response to a request. In particular, prohibitive voice (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012) involves the expression of concern or objection to practices or behaviours, and employee upward dissent (Kassing, 1998, 2002) involves employees voicing disagreements or contrary opinions to their supervisors. Similarly, resistance differs from research streams focusing on disagreement or conflict with another, such as ‘controversy’ (Johnson & Johnson, 1993), criticism (Baron, 1988), or conflict (Darnon, Doll, et al., 2007; Tjosvold, 2006) in that they do not necessarily focus on disagreement with a manager’s directive.

LGO and resistance Resistance to a manager’s requests represents a choice that can be fostered or inhibited by one’s GO. Consistent with LGO’s incremental view of ability, we expect individuals with a stronger mastery orientation to be more likely to engage in CR. This is because the incremental self-perception of ability associated with LGO creates beliefs that effort and persistence matter and that outcomes can be influenced. Individuals higher in LGO are also motivated by internal rather than by external standards. Therefore, they may be more likely to constructively challenge a manager’s request in pursuit of a more positive outcome. These individuals respond to achievement settings with approach and adaptive behavioural patterns (Button et al., 1996; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Payne et al., 2007) consistent with CR, including seeking changes, selecting challenging assignments, and developing capabilities (Payne et al., 2007; VandeWalle, 1997; VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999). Research on mastery goals shows that individuals higher in LGO exhibit a greater willingness to share information (Poortvliet, Janssen, Van Yperen, & VandeVliert, 2007) and to modify information to increase its value to others (Poortvliet, Janssen, Van Yperen, & VandeVliert, 2009). For example, when individuals higher in LGO perceive that a

616


manager’s perspective on assignments or issues may not produce expected results, they are more likely to approach the manager, challenge implicit assumptions, and present reasons for different options (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). The use of epistemic conflict regulation strategies (i.e., focusing on the task and knowledge in understanding differences) is also related to mastery goals (Darnon, Butera, & Harackiewicz, 2007; Darnon, Muller, Schrager, Pannuzzo, & Butera, 2006). Thus, we predict that as LGO increases, so too will the likelihood of engaging in CR. Conversely, we predict that as LGO increases, DR will decrease. As stated earlier, individuals higher in LGO believe they can influence outcomes (as aligned with their incremental perception of ability). They also focus on individual contributions to achievement (i.e., internal standards). Because engaging in DR detracts from advancing the goals of a work unit, individuals higher in LGO would likely see this behaviour as violating their belief in contribution and performance. Therefore, given the approach and adaptive behavioural patterns associated with LGO, we do not expect LGO to be related to DR patterns that include avoidance behaviours.

PPGO and resistance Both LGO and PPGO share an approach perspective; however, individuals higher in PPGO may be less likely to engage in CR because of their self-perceptions of fixed ability and a focus on external standards. The fixed ability beliefs that characterize PPGO create a perception that effort is futile in affecting development or change. Research suggests that individuals higher in PPGO ignore developmental feedback and blame others for failure (Payne et al., 2007; VandeWalle, 1997; VandeWalle et al., 1999). Individuals higher in PPGO are also less willing to share important information that could have a positive impact on others (Poortvliet et al., 2007). Thus, it is unlikely they would exert the effort to constructively challenge a manager’s ideas or attempt to promote positive change, instead of blaming the manager for the lack of results. Similarly, the focus on preserving self-competence and external standards would motivate those higher in PPGO to engage with managers only when they are sure it would lead to favourable evaluations and comparisons with others (VandeWalle, 1997). This orientation seeks feedback only to validate their competence (Janssen & Prins, 2007; Tuckey, Brewer, & Williamson, 2002; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997; VandeWalle, Ganesan, Challagalla, & Brown, 2000). For those higher in PPGO, therefore, CR may be perceived as risky because it could threaten their desire for positive evaluation. We also propose that PPGO will be negatively related to DR. Engaging in DR may threaten the need to secure external approval and maintain self-competence because it involves ignoring and failing to fulfil a manager’s request. For individuals higher in PPGO, engaging in such passive-aggressive or avoidant behaviour works counter to their desire to prove their performance and validate their competence. Likewise, individuals higher in PPGO are less oriented towards avoidance, making it unlikely they would choose an avoidance behaviour such as DR.

PAGO and resistance Unlike LGO and PPGO, PAGO is characterized by avoidance rather than approach motivation. The avoidance mechanism shapes a desire to avoid embarrassing themselves and to eschew negative judgements from others (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Janssen & Prins, 2007; Payne et al., 2007). Given that challenging a manager’s request through CR


617

may be seen as a risky behaviour that could lead to negative evaluations, it is inconsistent with the primary motivations of PAGO (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Janssen & Prins, 2007; Payne et al., 2007; VandeWalle, 1997). Furthermore, PAGO shares the fixed ability and external motivation standards that characterize PPGO, reinforcing the belief that challenging a manager’s directive is futile in advancing change. Thus, given the avoidance motivation, and the belief that any exerted effort will not result in positive change, we hypothesize a negative relationship between PAGO and CR. Given that individuals higher in PAGO are more likely to disengage from interactions with the manager by withdrawing and avoiding (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Payne et al., 2007), we hypothesize a positive relationship with DR. This is consistent with Dragoni (2005), who proposed that PAGO would relate to defensive behaviours such as avoiding unwanted demands or delivering bad news. The avoidance mechanism underlying PAGO, along with the belief that challenging a manager is futile and may cause negative evaluations, all suggest that individuals higher in PAGO are more likely to engage in DR. Hypothesis 1:

Learning goal orientation (LGO) will be positively associated with constructive resistance (CR), while performance-prove (PPGO) and performance-avoid (PAGO) goal orientation will be negatively associated with constructive resistance (CR).

Hypothesis 2:

Learning goal orientation (LGO) and performance-prove goal orientation (PPGO) will be negatively associated with dysfunctional resistance (DR), while performance-avoid goal orientation (PAGO) will be positively associated with dysfunctional resistance (DR).

Resistance and manager emotional exhaustion We expect GO to influence individuals’ interactions with managers and, subsequently, managers’ perception of these interactions. GO theory has traditionally focused on how individuals’ motivational orientations shape proximal behaviours (e.g., self-regulatory task and goal behaviours) on distal outcomes (e.g., job performance and learning). We provide a conceptual advancement to this literature by extending the framework to include interpersonal proximal (e.g., resistance patterns) and distal (e.g., manager emotional exhaustion with the employee) outcomes not previously examined. In so doing, we offer one of the first studies to examine how GO-related behaviours impact others. Manager emotional exhaustion captures the emotional depletion of energy and resources a manager reports expending in interacting with an employee. It is the extent to which a manager feels that interacting with an employee is tiring, a strain, and emotionally draining (Maslach et al., 1996). According to COR Theory, individuals are motivated to conserve important resources that buffer the negative effects of stress in the workplace (Hobfoll, 2011). Halbesleben et al. (2014) define a resource as any internal (e.g., selfefficacy) or external (e.g., work policies) characteristic perceived by the individual to help attain his or her goal. Research on COR Theory suggests that social interaction (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vegel, 2014; Cole et al., 2012; Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004; Leiter & Stright, 2009) plays a critical role as both a demand characteristic increasing stress and a potential resource alleviating workplace burnout (i.e., the Job Demands-Resources Theory and COR Theory). When interactions and relationships at work are positive, they contribute knowledge, assistance, and emotional support that facilitate attaining work

618


and organizational goals (Hobfoll, 2002; Leiter & Stright, 2009). When interactions are negative, they consume time, impose pressure, and create strain and emotional distress (Leiter & Stright, 2009). Although burnout research has focused on how coworkers (Fernet et al., 2010) and managers (Huang et al., 2010) influence employees’ levels of burnout in organizations, researchers have not investigated how the behaviours of employees are associated with managers’ levels of emotional exhaustion. In examining manager emotional exhaustion with the employee, we expand the scope of social interaction to include employees as a source of emotional exhaustion. For example, individuals who express CR make their intentions and motives clear when interacting with managers. Although a disagreement with a manager’s directive may, depending on the manager, cause immediate discomfort or frustration, the objection by the employee is overt and can be dealt with. This approach mentality thus would not lead to prolonged strain as the manager would be able to deal with the challenge. Furthermore, an overt challenge may ultimately be seen by the manager as an effort to help the work unit meet organizational goals (Burris, Detert, & Romney, 2013; Detert & Burris, 2007). Tepper et al. (2006) suggest that while CR is risky, it is intended to help the manager without damaging the relationship, and a strong relationship may foster, rather than reduce, the resources managers need to cope with stress. Indeed, when managers perceive that employee behaviour promotes work functioning (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), it may serve as a source of support, alleviating stress (Nordhaus-Bike, 1995; Stanley, 2004). In contrast, DR involves silent deception that may impede work output (Tepper et al., 2006) and contribute to prolonged stress on the part of the manager. Passively avoidant employees withhold relevant information or concerns, which can subsequently increase a manager’s frustration (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Hetland, Sandal, and Johnsen (2007) found that passive–avoidant leaders provided minimal participation and low goal clarity, resulting in detrimental effects on subordinates’ well-being and emotional exhaustion. Following this research, we posit that passive and avoidant behaviours by subordinates may lead to stronger feelings of managers’ emotional exhaustion. When subordinates withhold information, resist authority, and engage in detrimental behaviours, managers must expend more emotional and mental energy, tighten up their managerial control, or question their managerial self-efficacy. Expending these resources to deal with a stressful employee may lead to greater frustration and anxiety for the manager, and prolonged exposure to such feelings may ultimately lead to emotional exhaustion (Maslach, 1982). Hypothesis 3:

Employees’ constructive resistance (CR) will be negatively related to manager’s ratings of emotional exhaustion with the employee.

Hypothesis 4:

Employees’ dysfunctional resistance (DR) will be positively related to managers’ ratings of emotional exhaustion with the subordinate.

We expect resistance patterns to mediate the effect of GO on manager’s emotional exhaustion with the employee. Consistent with the model depicted in Payne et al. (2007), we propose that proximal variables influence the link between GO and outcomes. Several studies have found that proximal variables such as proactive behaviours (Porath & Bateman, 2006), work commitment (Creed, King, Hood, & McKenzie, 2009), and emotional control (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004) mediate the relationship between GO and performance outcomes. In the present study, we propose


619

that GO influences managers’ emotional exhaustion through behavioural resistance strategies. As a proximal outcome, resistance behaviours are posited to manifest because of an individual’s motivational GO. Although managers are not expected to have a direct reaction to employees’ GO, they are likely to have a reaction to behavioural forms of resistance and, as a result, be indirectly affected by the employee’s dispositional GO. Hypothesis 5:

Constructive resistance (CR) will mediate the relationship between subordinates’ GO and manager emotional exhaustion with the employee.

Hypothesis 6:

Dysfunctional resistance (DR) will mediate the relationship between subordinates’ GO and manager emotional exhaustion with the employee.

Methods Sample and procedure This study was conducted in a private mid-sized manufacturing company in east China. Participants worked in various functional areas throughout the organization. The company was an emergent regional industry leader with recent expansion in facility and personnel as well as organization-wide structural change aimed at improving operational efficiencies and responsiveness to the needs of clients. A Chinese professor distributed surveys on-site, briefed the participants about the study, and collected the completed surveys. The executive team of the company informed their employees of the meaningfulness of the present research through an email of support. To protect confidentiality, we randomly assigned identification codes to both employees and their managers so that we could match their responses. All participants were informed that their participation was completely voluntary and that they could withdraw any time during the procedure without harmful consequences. We collected survey responses at three time periods. At Time 1, 812 participants attended a company-wide general training session and were asked to complete a survey on their GO. We collected 719 responses in total, yielding a response rate of 88.5%. Three months later at Time 2, we sent these respondents an email survey and asked them to rate their resistance behaviours; 598 complete responses were returned (83.2%). At Time 3 (2 weeks after Time 2), we asked the 156 managers of the 812 participants to complete surveys regarding their emotional exhaustion with each one of their subordinates; 132 managers returned their complete responses (84.6%). Using randomly assigned identification codes, we identified a final sample of 565 employee responses that matched with responses from 122 managers. Of the 565 employee respondents, 164 were female (29.0%). The average age and organizational tenure were 27.5 and 3.6 years, respectively. Of the 122 manager respondents, 24 were female (19.7%). The average age and organizational tenure were 34.5 and 7.2 years, respectively. The relationship tenure of the manager–employee dyad was 2.9 years.

Measures One of the authors fluent in Mandarin and English translated the survey-related materials into Chinese. Another bilingual researcher followed the back-translation procedure to ensure that the English and Chinese versions were comparable with accuracy (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973).

620


Goal orientation We assessed employees’ GO using the 13-item GO scale (VandeWalle, 1997). This scale has been validated in a number of studies in the Chinese context (Fan, Meng, Billings, Litchfield, & Kaplan, 2008; Hirst, van Knippenberg, Chen, & Sacramento, 2011). The scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 6 = ‘strongly agree’) consists of five items for LGO (a = .89) and four items each for PPGO (a = .78) and PAGO (a = .88). Sample items included: ‘I often look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge’ (LGO), ‘I try to figure out what it takes to prove my ability to others at work’ (PPGO), and ‘I would avoid taking on a new task if there was a chance that I would appear rather incompetent to others’ (PAGO).

Resistance Resistance was measured using Tepper et al.’s (2001) resistance scales, with four items for CR (a = .89) and six items for DR (a = .94). Respondents were asked to consider circumstances when they resisted doing something asked by their manager and then indicate how often they used the tactic in response to their manager’s requests (1 = ‘never’, 5 = ‘very frequently’). Sample items include: ‘I present logical reasons for doing the task differently or at a different time’ (CR) and ‘I act like I don’t know about it’ (DR).

Emotional exhaustion Manager emotional exhaustion with the subordinate was measured using a modified version of the 5-item emotional exhaustion subdimension of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1996). The modifications involved rewording items from general job experience to the manager’s experience with a particular subordinate. A sample item is: ‘Working with this individual makes me feel emotionally drained’. The Cronbach’s alpha was .92.

Control variables Following prior GO studies (Gong et al., 2013; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009; Hirst et al., 2011), we controlled for demographic variables including age, gender, and organizational tenure. We also controlled for dyad tenure because previous research suggests that it is related to employees’ choice of resistance strategies (Tepper et al., 2006). In addition, we controlled for manager’s age, gender, and organizational tenure.

Analytic strategy Using Mplus 6.1 (Muthen & Muthen, 2010), we first conducted a set of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to examine the fit of our proposed measurement model. We then compared this model with several alternative measurement models. Next, given the nested nature of data in this study, using HLM7 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011) we conducted hierarchical linear modelling (Hofmann, 1997) with maximum-likelihood estimation to analyse our proposed model. The independent variables and the mediators were all grand-mean-centred as we did not conceptualize, nor did we measure, employees’ shared perceptions regarding group-level GO or collective resistance behaviours. Finally, to estimate the significance of the indirect effects of GOs on manager emotional exhaustion via constructive and DR, we used the PRODCLIN program


621

developed by MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, and Lockwood (2007) to estimate the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the indirect effects.

Results Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1. The three GO predictors were significantly correlated with resistance and manager emotional exhaustion. The control variables at the level of subordinate, except for relationship tenure, were all significantly correlated with one or more of the primary study variables. In addition, manager’s age and organizational tenure were significantly correlated with one or more of the primary study variables. Thus, with the exception of relationship tenure, we included these control variables in our multilevel analyses via hierarchical linear modelling.

Measurement model tests The CFA results (see Table 2) indicated that our hypothesized six-factor model produced a good fit with the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999): v2 = 721.96, df = 335, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .05. We then assessed the fit of several alternative measurement models as shown in Table 2. Chi-square difference tests suggested that this proposed model produced a significantly better fit than the best alterative model in which we loaded the LGO and PPGO items onto one latent factor (Dv2 = 456.66, p < .01). Therefore, our baseline measurement model successfully captured the unique constructs of interests.

Hypotheses tests Hypothesis 1 predicted that LGO would positively, while PPGO and PAGO would negatively, relate to CR. As shown in Model 2 of Table 3, the results showed that LGO (c = .26, p < .01) and PPGO were positively related to CR (c = .18, p < .01). PAGO was negatively related to CR (c = .24, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that LGO would negatively – while PAGO would positively – relate to DR. As shown in Model 4 of Table 3, the results showed that LGO was negatively associated with DR (c = .22, p < .01), whereas PAGO was positively related to DR (c = .23, p < .01). Therefore, we found support for Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 predicted that CR would be negatively related to manager emotional exhaustion. Hypothesis 4 predicted that DR would be positively related to manager emotional exhaustion. As shown in Model 7 of Table 3, the results showed that CR (c = .27, p < .01) was negatively, while DR (c = .30, p < .01) was positively, associated with manager emotional exhaustion. Hypotheses 3 and 4 were thus supported. Hypothesis 5 predicted that CR would mediate the relationship linking GO variables with emotional exhaustion. Using the PRODCLIN program (MacKinnon et al., 2007), we constructed the 95% CI for the indirect effects of all three GO variables on manager emotional exhaustion via CR. As shown in Table 4, the results showed that LGO (l = .07, 95% CI [ .126, .029]), PPGO (l = .05, 95% CI [ .083, .022]), and PAGO (l = .06, 95% CI [.026, .119]) all had significant indirect effects on emotional exhaustion through CR. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported. Hypothesis 6 stated that DR would mediate the relationship linking GO variables and emotional exhaustion. Using the PRODCLIN program discussed above, we constructed

– .06 .09 .00 .09 .07 .03 .03 .03 .05 .05 .00 1.80 0.40

– .01 .68 .08 .05 .05 .06 .01 .06 .04 .00 .08 .09 34.53 4.65 – .02 .07 .06 .11 .02 .10 .01 .01 .04 .09 7.20 3.22

3

– .06 .52 .35 .15 .09 .14 .13 .03 .11 27.45 3.00

4

– .02 .03 .05 .03 .02 .03 .08 .02 1.71 0.45

5

– .75 .04 .01 .09 .04 .05 .08 3.59 1.93

6

– .00 .03 .02 .00 .05 .04 2.92 1.29

7

(.89) .41 .55 .41 .42 .49 4.30 1.19

8

(.78) .37 .35 .25 .19 4.42 0.98

9

(.88) .38 .43 .49 3.34 1.21

10

(.89) .37 .29 3.12 0.93

11

(.93) .33 2.67 1.02

12

(.92) 1.50 0.75

13

Note. N = 565 Subordinates, N = 122 Managers. The absolute value of effect size at .08 and above was significant at p < .05; the absolute value of effect size at .13 and above was significant at p < .01. Two-tailed test. Values in parentheses represent coefficient alphas for the scales.

1. Manager’s age 2. Manager’s gender 3. Manager’s organizational tenure 4. Subordinate’s age 5. Subordinate’s gender 6. Subordinate’s organizational tenure 7. Relationship tenure 8. Learning goal orientation 9. Performance-prove orientation 10. Performance-avoid goal orientation 11. Constructive resistance 12. Dysfunctional resistance 13. Manager’s emotional exhaustion Mean SD

2

1

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables

622 Joan F. Brett et al.


623

Table 2. Comparisons of measurement models based on confirmatory factor analyses Description

v2

df

Hypothesized 6-factor model

721.96

335

LGO and PPGO combined PPGO and PAGO combined CR and DR combined LGO, PPGO, and PAGO combined All items loaded on one latent factor

1178.62 1565.24 2263.46 3099.05

340 340 340 344

7973.87

350

Model Baseline Alternative 5-factor 5-factor 5-factor 4-factor 1-factor

Dv2

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

SRMR

.96

.95

.05

.05

456.66 843.28 1541.50 2377.09

.91 .88 .86 .79

.90 .87 .84 .77

.07 .08 .10 .12

.07 .08 .09 .08

7251.91

.43

.38

.20

.14

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; LGO = learning goal orientation; PPGO = performance-prove goal orientation; PAGO = performance-avoid goal orientation; CR = constructive resistance; DR = dysfunctional resistance. N = 565.

the 95% CI for the indirect effects of all three GO variables on manager emotional exhaustion via DR. The results showed that LGO (l = .07, 95% CI [ .114, .030]) and PAGO (l = .07, 95% CI [.032, .118]) both had significant indirect effects on emotional exhaustion through DR. However, the indirect effect of PPGO on emotional exhaustion via DR was not significant (l = .02, 95% CI [ .053, .003], including zero). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 was partially supported.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of GO on employees’ reported use of resistance behaviours and the mediating effect of these behaviours on the relationship between GO and manager emotional exhaustion. Drawing from the psychological mechanisms underlying GO (i.e., fixed/incremental ability perceptions, internal/external standards, and approach/avoidance perspective), we hypothesized and found that GO motivates different types of interpersonal behaviour with one’s manager in the workplace. Specifically, the findings support our hypothesis that individuals higher in LGO are more likely to engage in CR, and less likely to engage in DR, with their manager. Consistent with previous research indicating that LGO is driven by an incremental belief in ability and an approach perspective (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), our findings suggest that individuals higher in LGO may see utility in challenging a manager’s directive and believe that, if they take a positive approach, they can influence change (Gong et al., 2009). Such efforts are consistent with LGO in that they alert managers to potential problems and identify opportunities for productive change. A valuable extension to the LGO literature then would be for future research to investigate whether LGO predicts other types of positive, interpersonal behaviours such as cooperating with a peer to accomplish a challenging task or assisting others in learning new tactics. The results for PAGO also support our hypothesis of a positive relationship with DR and a negative relationship with CR. Given that PAGO is characterized by a fixed view of

624


Table 3. Results of hierarchical linear modelling Dependent variables CR

Intercept Level-2 control variables Manager’s age Manager’s organizational tenure Level-1 control variables Age Gender Organizational tenure Level-1 predictors Learning goal orientation Performance-prove orientation Performance-avoid goal orientation CR DR R2 ΔR2

Manager emotional exhaustion

DR

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

3.12**

3.12**

2.66**

2.66**

1.50**

1.51**

1.52**

.01 .01

.01 .00

.02† .01

.01 .00

.01 .01

.00 .01

.00 .01

.05 .05 .02

.02 .06 .01

.02 .16† .04

.05 .10† .04

.02 .00 .02

.00 .05 .02

.00 .05 .02

.19** .02 .21**

.09 .03 .12*

.17 .15

.27** .30** .28 .11

.26** .18** .24**

.03

.21 .18

.22** .07 .23**

.04

.21 .17

.02

Note. CR = constructive resistance; DR = dysfunctional resistance. N = 565 (nested in 122 groups). R2 values were calculated using the formula developed by Snijders and Bosker (1999). † p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01.

ability and a strong avoidance perspective (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Janssen & Prins, 2007; Payne et al., 2007; VandeWalle, 1997), it is not surprising that these individuals chose to engage in a passive–avoidant behaviour such as DR. Their belief that effort is futile in creating change, and their natural tendency to avoid behaviour that could spark negative evaluations, would make them perceive that a way around a manager’s faulty request is to ignore it or pretend they did not hear it. The fixed ability and avoidance perspective inherent in PAGO could also help explain why they fail to engage in CR. It is likely that individuals higher in PAGO perceive CR as a waste of time and energy and that it is better to passively avoid a directive than to constructively resist it. For PPGO, the fixed ability perspective and strong focus on external evaluations (Janssen & Prins, 2007; Tuckey et al., 2002; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997; VandeWalle et al., 2000) led us to hypothesize that individuals higher in PPGO would perceive risk involved in CR and therefore use it less. However, the results for PPGO and CR did not support our hypothesis of a negative relationship; instead, a significant positive relationship was found between PPGO and CR. This finding is interesting in the light of inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between PPGO and outcomes (Payne et al., 2007). A possible explanation is that the context of the organization makes some psychological mechanisms more salient than others in shaping PPGO motivation, pointing to potential moderators in the relationship between PPGO and interpersonal


625

Table 4. Summary of indirect effects of goal orientation (GO) on manager emotional exhaustion through resistance GO?Resistance?Manager emotional exhaustion Constructive resistance Indirect effect Learning goal orientation Performance-prove goal orientation Performance-avoid goal orientation

Dysfunctional resistance

95% CI LB

UB

.07 .05

.126 .083

.029 .022

.06

.026

.119

Indirect effect

95% CI LB

UB

.07 .02

.114 .053

.030 .003

.07

.032

.118

Note. CI = confidence interval; LB = lower bound; UB = upper bound. N = 565. Confidence interval was estimated using the PRODCLIN program developed by MacKinnon et al. (2007).

behaviours that could be considered risky. In other words, it may be that although these individuals have an approach perspective, under certain circumstances (e.g., competition among peers) or while working with certain managers, the perceived risk of CR varies. For example, if managers demonstrate a cooperative or participative style, employees may experience less threat to their self-esteem or self-evaluation from engaging in CR. Similarly, if the organizational culture is more empowering and encourages constructive arguments, CR may be more prevalent among individuals higher in PPGO. This suggests that there may be important boundary conditions to GO not previously identified in the literature. That is, we need to ask the question: ‘Are some work issues more likely to threaten or foster self-perceptions of fixed ability, positive evaluation, and comparisons to others?’ If so, then it is possible that individuals higher in PPGO will constructively resist because doing so will make them look helpful or smart. Further, we may need to consider that while PPGO takes an approach perspective, the nature of how they approach may be shaped by the other two psychological mechanisms. A key implication of this finding is that future research should consider assessing (1) how individuals with a higher PPGO perceive the evaluative nature of a specific context and (2) whether potential threats to their fixed view of ability are related to their choice of how to behave interpersonally. Consistent with our hypothesis, resistance mediated the relationship of LGO, PPGO, and PAGO with manager emotional exhaustion: CR was negatively related, and DR was positively related, to manager’s emotional exhaustion with the employee. This finding suggests that the avoidance mechanism that underlies PAGO may be a source of stress and strain for the manager (Leiter & Stright, 2009; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Given that DR is indirect and covert in nature, managers may find themselves exerting more resources to manage a subordinate who engages in these behaviours (Cole et al., 2012; Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). On the other hand, CR is direct and overt, and managers can more readily deal with the challenge. To understand this more fully, future research might want to investigate the relationship between GO and other types of interpersonal behaviours, such as upward dissent to supervisors (Kassing, 1998, 2002), prohibitive voice (Liang et al., 2012), or cooperation (Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012).

626


Theoretical implications Our study makes important contributions to GO theory. We extend the GO nomological net (cf. Payne et al., 2007) by linking GO to interpersonal behaviours at work and the impact of these behaviours on others. Whereas previous research has focused on how GO shapes effective and ineffective strategies for attaining task, learning, and performance outcomes (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Payne et al., 2007; Yeo, Loft, Xiao, & Kiewitz, 2009), our study adds to the literature by understanding the influence of GO on interpersonal behaviours and, subsequently, well-being outcomes for the manager. In this way, we address the call by DeShon and Gillespie (2005) to move beyond task and learning strategies and focus on expanding ‘action plan goals’ by considering interpersonal behaviours that foster or hinder positive and negative relationships with others in the workplace. We extend the findings of achievement goal theory (Darnon, Butera, et al., 2007; Darnon, Doll, et al., 2007; Darnon et al., 2006; Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012; Poortvliet et al., 2007, 2009, 2012; Sommet et al., 2014) by adding a focus on how avoid orientation impacts passive-aggressive and dysfunctional behaviour patterns, and the potential detrimental impact an avoid orientation can have on managers. Our study is consistent with recent findings reporting that mastery approach and mastery avoidance goals are related to job engagement and fatigue through instrumental exchange relationships and emotional support (Poortvliet, Anseel, & Theuwis, 2015). This reinforces the need for additional research examining the relationships between GO, interpersonal exchanges, and managers’ emotional exhaustion. Our study also indicates the value of examining the influence of GO on different facets of a behavioural construct (e.g., constructive vs. dysfunctional resistance rather than general resistance behaviours). Doing so allows us to gain a more finite understanding of how different GO-related behaviour positively and negatively affects managers. Indeed, research on employee behaviour has demonstrated the importance of investigating different facets of voice (Burris, 2012; Liang et al., 2012; Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014; Van Dyne et al., 2003) and feedback-seeking behaviour (Gong, Wang, Huang, & Cheung, 2016). For example, Gong et al. (2016) investigate multiple dimensions of feedbackseeking behaviour in an effort to understand how the different motivational GOs predict positive and negative forms of feedback (i.e., self-negative, self-positive, other-positive and other-negative FSB). Our study adds to this developing research to suggest that the different psychological mechanisms that drive GO affect interpersonal behaviour in unique and important ways. Our findings have important theoretical implications for research on emotional exhaustion. We extend COR Theory to understand how GO-related employee behaviour can serve as a demand characteristic that increases stress, or a helpful resource that buffers against workplace burnout (Cole et al., 2012; Leiter & Stright, 2009). This sheds new light on the antecedents and consequences of manager emotional exhaustion and shows that the ways in which employees frustrate or exhaust managers might differ from the manager behaviours that cause stress or exhaustion in employees. Advancing understanding of these issues is important because manager emotional exhaustion is likely to have ripple effects on different constituents and organizational performance given the large number of people who depend on managers for direction, strategy, priorities, and vision. Finally, our research heeds the call by Darnon et al. (2012) to investigate positive and destructive outcomes of achievement goals. Our investigation of manager emotional exhaustion with the employee captures a hint of what it is like to supervise individuals with different GOs. Our findings raise interesting new questions for GO researchers:


627

‘What are the challenges associated with supervising employees who are consistently more concerned with external evaluations than with improvement, who are not open to feedback, who seek to avoid embarrassment and engage in withdrawal behaviours, who do not speak up, and/or who do so in dysfunctional ways? One would expect these behaviours might affect supervisors’ willingness to work with these employees, the promotability of these employees, and the willingness of leaders to invest in the development of these employees. Also, one would expect these behaviours might affect peers’ willingness to work with these employees or customer’s perceptions of quality service or complaints. Practical implications Many GO researchers encourage managers to select employees based on GO to offset the detrimental effect of this disposition on important outcomes. However, the reality is that in many organizations, managers are not able to change the selection process, but can instead adopt other practices. First, it is important for organizations to educate and sensitize managers to the motivational orientations their employees bring to the workplace and how GOs influence employee behaviours. Such education could increase managers’ awareness that employees differ in the psychological mechanisms associated with GO. This will help managers understand why some employees embrace challenges with a ‘let’s master this’ response, while others are reluctant to exert effort and still others seek to avoid embarrassment or negative consequences. Second, managers need different tactics to effectively motivate different employees. For those with performance-prove orientations, managers might encourage them to set learning goals, praise them for their effort, and emphasize evaluations based on mastery attainment or internal standards rather than comparisons to others. Likewise, for those with PAGOs, managers might help them by minimizing the perceived threat to self-esteem and possible embarrassment and influence them to take more risk and initiate actions without fear of negative consequences. For individuals higher in PAGO, managers may need to help employees understand the long term, and potentially negative impact, that avoidant behaviours have on the department or work unit. With this understanding, employees may become open to coaching from managers on how to constructively engage with leaders and the benefits of doing so. Armed with this knowledge of why individuals are motivated differently, managers can better shape work experiences so that employees attain their disposition-related goals (e.g., avoid embarrassment, insure positive evaluations) without jeopardizing important work outcomes. Our findings linking GO with manager emotional exhaustion with the employee clearly indicate that it is worth the manager’s time and effort to coach employees on more adaptive and constructive behaviours. Through better understanding and coaching, managers can foster supportive work climates that value learning and development, reward employees for offering constructive suggestions, and minimize threats to selfesteem. Limitations Several limitations of this research should be noted. First, we used cross-sectional data so we cannot draw clear conclusions about causality. Second, our study only controlled for manager and subordinate demographics, and it is possible that other constructs such as LMX may influence both subordinate’s interpersonal interactions (Tepper et al., 2006) and managers’ perceptions of emotional exhaustion. Third,

628


managers’ GO may predispose them to perceive interpersonal interactions in certain ways or predispose them to emotional exhaustion (Naidoo et al., 2012). Future research should consider whether managers’ GO is associated with preferences for different kinds of interpersonal interactions. For example, did the managers in this study experience emotional exhaustion associated with DR because they held a learning orientation? What are the implications for manager outcomes when manager and employee GOs match versus when they do not (e.g., both performance-avoid vs. performance-prove and mastery)? Finally, the data were collected in China, which prevented us from drawing generalized conclusions about any difference between the pattern of results we found in this particular eastern culture context and that expected in other cultures. Prior research has shown that people in western cultures tend to value opportunities to engage in decision-making processes more than those in eastern cultures (Brockner et al., 2001). Therefore, the impact of individuals’ GO on their resistance behaviour as we found in the present study might not be as strong as it would be in western cultures.

Conclusion In sum, our study expands understanding of how GO influences interpersonal behaviours and the effects of these behaviours on others, and offers a good start in moving beyond one-shot indicators of performance (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). By considering how motivational dynamics underlying GO (approach/avoidance, intra-/interpersonal foci, and ability perspectives) influence behaviours towards others in the workplace, this study encourages new questions regarding the interpersonal behaviours related to GO and their implications for manager outcomes in the workplace.

References Alexander, L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal orientation perspective. Academy of Management Review, 39, 423–438. doi:10.5465/ amr.2012.0044 Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vegel, A. (2014). Burnout in the work environment: The JD-R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 389–411. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235 Baranik, L. E., Stanley, L. J., Bynum, B. H., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Examining the construct validity of mastery-avoidance achievement goals: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 23, 265–282. doi:10.1080/08959285.2010.488463 Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199–207. doi:10.1037/00219010.73.2.199 Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York, NY: John Wiley. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., . . . Kirkman, B. L. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300–315. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1451 Burris, E. R. (2012). Risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 851–875. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0562 Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Romney, A. C. (2013). Speaking up vs. being heard: The disagreement around and outcomes of employee voice. Organization Science, 24(1), 22–38. doi:10.1287/ orsc.1110.0732


629

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(1), 26–48. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0063 Byrne, A., Dionisi, A. M., Barling, J., Akers, A., Robertson, J., Lys, R., . . . Dupr e, K. (2014). The depleted leader: The influence of leaders’ diminished psychological resources on leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 344–357. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.09.003 Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout and employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of Management, 38, 1550–1581. doi:10.1177/0149206311415252 Creed, P. A., King, V., Hood, M., & McKenzie, R. (2009). Goal orientation, self-regulation strategies, and job-seeking intensity in unemployed adults. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 806–813. doi:10.1037/a0015518 Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning with mastery vs. performance goals. Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 61–70. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9049-2 Darnon, C., Doll, S., & Butera, F. (2007). Dealing with a disagreeing partner: Relational and epistemic conflict elaboration. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 227–242. doi:10.1007/ BF03173423 Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., & Poortvliet, P. M. (2012). Achievement goals in educational contexts: A social psychology perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 760–771. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00457.x Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 766–776. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.766 Day, E., Yeo, S., & Radosevich, D. J. (2003). Comparing two- and three-factor models of goal orientation: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Convention, Orlando, FL. DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096–1127. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1096 Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–884. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183 DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 47–65. doi:10.1037/a0020932 Dierdorff, E. C., & Ellington, J. K. (2012). Members matter in team training: Multilevel and longitudinal relationships between goal orientation, self-regulation and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 65, 661–703. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01255.x Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational units: The role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1084–1095. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1084 Dragoni, L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Better understanding work unit goal orientation: Its emergence and impact under different types of work unit structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1032. doi:10.1037/a0028405 Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. The American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040 Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5 Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–652. doi:10.2307/256490

630


Fan, J., Meng, H., Billings, R. S., Litchfield, R. C., & Kaplan, I. (2008). On the role of goal orientation traits and self-efficacy in the goal-setting process: Distinctions that make a difference. Human Performance, 21, 354–382. doi:10.1080/08959280802347122 Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal orientation and action control theory: Implications for industrial and organizational psychology. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 193–232. Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional-scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596–607. doi:10.2307/ 255909 Fernet, C., Gagne, M., & Austin, S. (2010). When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict burnout over time? The moderating role of work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1163–1180. doi:10.1002/job.673 Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246–255. doi:10.1037/ 1076-8998.5.2.246 Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & 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. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890 Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 827–851. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0177 Gong, Y., Wang, M., Huang, J. C., & Cheung, S. Y. (2016). Toward a goal orientation-based feedbackseeking typology implications for employee performance outcomes. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206314551797 Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multidomain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1134–1145. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.91.5.1134 Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management, 30, 859–879. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.004 Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40, 1334–1364. doi:10.1177/0149206314527130 Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B. (2007). Burnout in the information technology sector: Does leadership matter? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 58– 75. doi:10.1080/13594320601084558 Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation–creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 624–641. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.61968124 Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 280–293. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308035 Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307 Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health, and resilience. In S. Folkman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127– 147). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hobfoll, S. E., & Freedy, J. (1993). Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent


631

developments in theory and research. Series in applied psychology: Social issues and questions (pp. 115–133). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723–744. doi:10.1177/014920639702300602 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Huang, X., Chan, S., Lam, W., & Nan, X. (2010). The joint effect of leader-member exchange and emotional intelligence on burnout and work performance in call centers in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1124–1144. doi:10.1080/ 09585191003783553 Janssen, O., & Prins, J. (2007). Goal orientations and the seeking of different types of feedback information. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 235–249. doi:10.1348/096317906X103410 Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. (2004). Employee’s goal orientations, the quality of leader member exchange and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368–384. doi:10.2307/20159587 Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Structuring academic controversy. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 66–81). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Johnson, P. D., Shull, A., & Wallace, J. C. (2011). Regulatory focus as a mediator in goal orientation and performance relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 751–766. doi:10.1002/job.701 Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the Organizational Dissent Scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 183–229. doi:10.1177/0893318998122002 Kassing, J. W. (2002). Speaking up: Identifying employees’ upward dissent strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 187–209. doi:10.1177/089331802237234 Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 297–308. doi:10.1002/ job.4030090402 Leiter, M., & Stright, N. (2009). The social context of work life: Implications for burnout and work engagement. In C. Cooper, J. Quick & M. Schabracq (Eds.), The handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 25–47). New York, NY: Wiley. Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92. doi:10.5465/ amj.2010.0176 MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384–389. doi:10.3758/BF03193007 Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 87–112. doi:10.1037/a0034284 Muthen, L., & Muthen, B. (2010). Mplus: Statistical analyses with latent variables. Los Angeles, CA: Authors. Naidoo, L. J., DeCriscio, A., Bily, H., Manipella, A., Ryan, M., & Youdim, J. (2012). The 2 9 2 model of goal orientation and burnout: The role of approach–avoidance dimensions in predicting burnout. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2541–2563. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.2012.00952.x

632


Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 216–234. doi:10.1002/job.754 Nordhaus-Bike, A. M. (1995). Battle against burnout. Hospitals & Health Networks, 69, 36–40. 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(1), 128–150. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.92.1.128 Poortvliet, P. M., Anseel, F., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (2012). Perverse effects of other-referenced performance goals in an information exchange context. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 401–414. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1005-8 Poortvliet, P. M., Anseel, F., & Theuwis, F. (2015). Mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals and their relation with exhaustion and engagement at work: The roles of emotional and instrumental support. Work and Stress, 29, 150–170. doi:10.1080/02678373.2015.1031856 Poortvliet, P. M., & Giebels, E. (2012). Self-improvement and cooperation: How exchange relationships promote mastery-approach driven individuals’ job outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 392–425. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.555080 Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & VandeVliert, E. (2007). Achievement goals and interpersonal behavior: How mastery and performance goals shape information exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1435–1447. doi:10.1177/0146167207305536 Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & VandeVliert, E. (2009). The joint impact of achievement goals and performance feedback on information giving. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 197–209. doi:10.1080/01973530903058276 Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185–192. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.185 Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & du Toit, M. (2011). HLM7. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel modeling: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (pp. 110–113). London, UK: Sage. Sommet, N., Darnon, C., Mugny, G., Quiamzade, A., Pulfrey, C., Dompnier, B., & Butera, F. (2014). Performance goals in conflictual social interactions: Towards the distinction between two modes of relational conflict regulation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(1), 134–153. doi:10.1111/bjso.12015 Stanley, T. (2004). Burnout: A manager’s worst nightmare. Supervision, 65, 11–13. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974–983. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.974 Tepper, B. J., Uhl-Bien, M., Kohut, G. F., Rogelberg, S. G., Lockhart, D. E., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Subordinates’ resistance and managers’ evaluations of subordinates’ performance. Journal of Management, 32, 185–209. doi:10.1177/0149206305277801 Tjosvold, D. (2006). Defining conflict and making choices about its management: Lighting the dark side of organizational life. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17, 87–95. doi:10.1108/10444060610736585 Tuckey, M., Brewer, N., & Williamson, P. (2002). The influence of motives and goal orientation on feedback seeking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 195–216. doi:10.1348/09631790260098677 Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392. doi:10.1111/ 1467-6486.00384 Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. doi:10.2307/ 256902


633

Van Mierlo, H., & Van Hooft, E. A. (2015). A group-level conceptualization of the 2 9 2 achievement goal framework antecedents and motivational outcomes. Group & Organization Management, 40(6), 776–808. doi:10.1177/1059601115592990 VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015. doi:10.1177/ 0013164497057006009 VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1999). The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 249–259. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.249 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. doi:10.1037/00219010.82.3.390 VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S. P. (2000). An integrated model of feedback-seeking behaviors: Disposition, context and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 996–1003. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.996 Yeo, G., Loft, S., Xiao, T., & Kiewitz, C. (2009). Goal orientations and performance: Differential relationships across levels of analysis and as a function of task demands. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 710–726. doi:10.1037/a0015044 Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Received 16 May 2014; revised version received 6 January 2016