7/25/2019 Team based interactions
1/33
This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 11 December 2014, At: 12:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
European Journal of Work and
Organizational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20
Improving work motivation and
performance in brainstorminggroups: The effects of three
group goal-setting strategiesJrgen Wegge
a& S. Alexander Haslam
b
aUniversity of Munich (LMU) , Germany
bSchool of Psychology , Exeter, UK
Published online: 17 Feb 2007.
To cite this article:Jrgen Wegge & S. Alexander Haslam (2005) Improving workmotivation and performance in brainstorming groups: The effects of three group goal-
setting strategies, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14:4,
400-430, DOI: 10.1080/13594320500349961
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320500349961
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320500349961http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13594320500349961http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo207/25/2019 Team based interactions
2/33
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions7/25/2019 Team based interactions
3/33
Improving work motivation and performance inbrainstorming groups: The effects of three group
goal-setting strategies
Ju rgen WeggeUniversity of Munich (LMU), Germany
S. Alexander HaslamSchool of Psychology, Exeter, UK
An experiment was conducted with 30 groups (n 120) solving brainstormingtasks under four different group goal conditions: do your best (DYB), directivegroup goal setting (DGGS), participative group goal setting (PGGS), andPGGS in combination with individual goal setting (PGGS IGS). Asexpected, all groups with specific and difficult group goals performed betterthan DYB control groups. It is hypothesized that these positive effects ofgroup goal setting on brainstorming performance arise because group goal
setting counteracts motivation losses such as social loafing. In addition,group goal setting should promote motivation gains arising from socialcompensation and related cognitive processes, in particular high identificationwith the group. Consistent with this hypothesis, it was found that group goalsetting increased team identification, the readiness to compensate for otherweak group members, the value of group success, and the value of groupfailure. Mediation analysis also indicated that concern to avoid group failurewas partly responsible for performance improvements. Finally, no largedifferences were found between PGGS IGS and PGGS or DGGS. On thisbasis group goal setting can be considered a robust strategy for improvingwork motivation and brainstorming performance in groups.
During the last few decades working in groups has become increasingly
popular in organizations. This is consistent not only with common beliefs
Correspondence should be addressed to Ju rgen Wegge, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita t
Mu nchen (LMU), Department of Psychology, Psychology of Excellence, Martiusstrasse 4,
D-80802 Mu nchen, Germany. Email: [email protected]
This research was supported by a grant from the University of Dortmund (Kennzahl 81 14
31). The authors would like to thank Ed Locke, Daan van Knippenberg, Michael West, and
three anonymous reviewers for detailed comments on an earlier version of this article.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2005, 14 (4), 400430
2005 Psychology Press Ltd
http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320500349961
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
4/33
about the synergy that can emerge when people work in teams but also
with insights from organizational and social psychology. Compared to
more traditional forms of work design, collaboration in teams has been
found to enhance communication, innovation, and the quality of decision
making (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Haslam, 2004; Kerr & Tindale, 2004; West,
2002; West, Borrill, & Unsworth, 1998). Moreover, working in teams or
groups (terms that we use here as synonyms) satisfies motivations for
collective self-actualization and meaningful work (Ellemers, de Gilder, &
Haslam, 2004). However, it is also widely recognized that teamwork is often
plagued with specific motivation and coordination problems. With respect to
group brainstorminga method of collective idea generation in groups
popularized by Osborn (1957)it is consistently found, for example, that
the inability for more than one group member to talk at a time (productionblocking) is a powerful process that can hamper team performance.
In addition, social loafing can occur when group members are not
individually identifiable or accountable for their performance (Karau &
Williams, 1993). Evaluation apprehensionwhereby group members are
concerned about the other group members appraisal of their ideasis also
another prominent motivation loss that can contribute to poor performance
on brainstorming tasks (see, for recent reviews, Kerr & Tindale, 2004;
Paulus, 2000; Paulus, Dugosh, Dzindolet, Coskun, & Putman, 2002;
Thompson, 2003).Based on this knowledge, research and applied literatures offer several
recommendations for improving traditional group brainstorming. For
example, prior research has documented the efficacy of using a facilitator
who is trained to minimize production blocking and evaluation apprehen-
sion (Oxley, Dzindolet, & Paulus, 1996). Other promising interventions
involve using electronic brainstorming (Pinsonneault, Barki, Gallupe,
& Hoppen, 1999) or exchanging written ideas in a sequential manner
(Paulus & Yang, 2000). The present research seeks to contribute to this
literature by analysing the efficiency of setting a specific and challenginggroup goal(e.g., trying to find 35 new ideas for solving a problem as a group
in 5 minutes). More specifically, the study examines the effects of three
group goal-setting strategies: (a) directive group goal setting by an authority
in a friendly and convincing tell and sell manner where a rationale for a
challenging group goal is given (DGGS), (b) participative group goal
setting by an authority realized within a fair group discussion about the
appropriate group goal (PGGS), and (c) PGGS in combination with
individual goal setting (PGGS IGS). All three strategies are based on
goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990, see below), and it is
expected that these techniques will motivate brainstorming groups
to work better than groups that are instructed simply to do their best
(DYB-control).
GROUP GOAL SETTING 401
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
5/33
Almost no prior research has examined if and how different group goal-
setting interventions enhance performance in brainstorming groups (but for
preliminary positive tests see Wegge & Haslam, 2003; Wegge & Kleinbeck,
1996). Garnering empirical evidence on this issue is therefore important for
practical reasons. Accordingly, the first aim of this study is to assess whether
group goal setting should be added to the list of interventions that have the
potential to increase performance in brainstorming groups. From a more
theoretical perspective, the study also seeks to investigate the motivational
underpinnings of the expected performance improvements induced by group
goal setting. It will be argued that the positive effects of group goal setting
on brainstorming performance arise because group goal settingcounteracts
the occurrence of motivation losses in teams such as social loafing. In
addition, this procedure should promote motivation gains such as socialcompensation (e.g., a deliberate decision to compensate for the weaknesses
of other team members) and related cognitive and emotional processes
resulting from high identification with the group. These putative links
between different group goal-setting manipulations and motivation gains or
motivation losses in teams have rarely been analysed in previous research
(Ellemers et al., 2004; Hertel, 2000). Thus, the second aim of the study is to
examine whether there is a fruitful link to be made between goal-setting
theory and social psychological research into motivational processes in
teams.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
There are literally hundreds of studies that demonstrate a reliable impact of
goals on behaviour (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002). Based on this evidence, it
is widely acknowledged that goals (intentions) are an immediate and
powerful regulator of human action. Goal-setting research has also
examined which aspects of goals are most important for predicting
differences in task performance. The current evidence on this question isconclusive. It has consistently been found that specific and difficult
performance goals lead to better performance than easy goals or unspecific
goal instructionstypified by invitations to Do your best.
The effects of goal setting, however, have typically been analysed in
relation to individual performance (Wagner, 1994). As a consequence, far
fewer studies have examined the impact ofgroup goals (an intention shared
by a group) on group performance. Nevertheless, there are several recent
studies indicating that group goal setting improves team performance
(DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiechmann, 2004; Durham,
Locke, Poon, & McLeod, 2000; Wegge, 2000; Wegge & Haslam, 2003) even
though some failures have also been reported (e.g., see Sagie, 1996; Wegge &
Haslam, 2004). In a meta-analysis covering 26 effect sizes derived from
402 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
6/33
10 studies conducted between 1978 and 1991 and comprising data from 163
groups and 1684 individuals, OLeary-Kelly, Martocchio, and Frink (1994)
found that performance of groups striving for a specific difficult group goal
is almost one standard deviation higher (d .92) than the performance of
groups that do not have clear goals (DYB-instructions). This effect is
referred to here as the GGS-effect and building on this work we propose that
it will also be observed in brainstorming groups:
Hypothesis 1: Compared to control instructions (DYB), group goal-
setting techniques (DGGS, PGGS, PGGS IGS) will increase brain-
storming performance.
CURRENT EXPLANATIONS FOR GROUPGOAL-SETTING EFFECTS
What mediating mechanisms contribute to the overall GGS effect? At least
two distinct propositions have been developed by previous researchers.
Often it is suggested that the mediating processes of GGS effects areidentical
to those mechanismsincreased effort, high persistence, task focusing,
development and use of appropriate task strategiesthat are responsible for
goal-setting effects in individual performance situations (see DeShon et al.,
2004; Durham et al., 2000; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002). This propositionis plausible since individual performance is usually the basis for team
performance. Moreover, team members sometimes set individual goals in
accordance with group goals (Widmeyer & Ducharme, 1997) so that
individual goals and corresponding mechanisms might mediate the effect of
group goals.
However, the individual goals of group members are sometimes in
conflict with either (a) the individual goals of other group members, (b) self-
set group goals, or (c) group goals suggested by group leaders (Crown &
Rosse, 1995; Haslam, 2004; Hinsz, 1995; Mitchell & Silver, 1990; Peterson,1999; Tjosvold, 1998). In the same situation, for example, some group
members might be guided by their individual goals (e.g., to work slowly and
reduce ones effort) while other group members strive for the group goal
(e.g., to work fast and achieve a high group standard). Various types of goal
conflicts can be found in groups (see Wegge, 2004, for a recent review) and
these goal conflicts serve to complicate predictions regarding the impact of
goal-setting manipulations by an (external) authority.
In the same vein, it is recognized that group work typically requires
additional processes such as communication and planning within the whole
team that are not necessarily required in individual performance situations.
Weldon and Weingart (1993) developed a model describing three specific
group-level mechanisms: (a) group planning (e.g., talking about who should
GROUP GOAL SETTING 403
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
7/33
do what, when, and where in the team), (b) cooperation (e.g., listening to the
ideas of others, helping team mates performing their work), and (c) morale-
building communication (e.g., statements that build a sense of collective
efficacy or that stimulate supportive emotions). In this model, it is assumed
that high values of these three processes increase the quality of group plans
and the expectancy of successelements that should serve to facilitate team
performance. To date, there is some evidence showing that the GGS effect is
mediated by task-specific group planning (e.g., Durham et al., 2000;
Weingart, 1992; Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan, 1991). However, empirical
evidence for the two other group mechanisms is weak. Consistent with the
assumption of Weldon and Weingart (1993), in the present study it is argued
that goal-setting theory has to beextendedif it is applied at the group level.
More specifically, it is proposed that further empirical efforts to identifypossible group-specific mechanisms underlying group goal effects should
consider those motivational processes that are usually discussed under the
heading of motivationlosses and motivationgains in social psychology
(Haslam, 2004; Hertel, 2000; Karau & Williams, 1993; Stroebe, Diehl, &
Abakoumkin, 1996).
GROUP GOAL SETTING AND MOTIVATIONLOSSES IN GROUPS
The basic phenomenon of motivation losses in groups is well documented in
social psychology (Karau & Williams, 1993). When individuals work in a
group they sometimes exert less effort than they do when working
individually on the same task. This basic phenomenon is called motivation
loss and it takes on several different forms. In particular, research has
provided evidence of (a) social loafing effects (unintentional reduction of
work motivation and effort when working collectively; Karau & Williams,
1993), (b) free-riding effects (deliberate reduction of effort if a persons
contribution is seen to be unnecessary for the group to succeed; see Kerr &Bruun, 1983), and (c) sucker effects (the deliberate withdrawal of effort that
occurs if a person realizes that a capable team partner is free-riding; Kerr,
1983; Kerr & Bruun, 1983).
To our knowledge, only three previous studies have empirically examined
possible links between motivation losses and group goal setting. Matsui,
Kakuyama, and Onglatco (1987) argued that providing both individual and
group goals and corresponding performance feedback increases the
identifiability of individual performance in teams, thereby counteracting
social loafing. In addition, group goals and group feedback should prevent
the occurrence of sucker effects. This is because having a specific, difficult
group goal should make people feel that their own efforts are indispensable
even if other team members are free-riding. Matsui et al.s empirical work
404 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
8/33
provides support for both propositions. Similarly, Erez and Somech (1996)
found that group performance loss (measured by the difference between
performance scores of individuals working alone and their scores when
working in groups) is less likely to occur when specific, difficult goals
(individual or group) are present. Finally, van Leeuwen and van
Knippenberg (2002) showed that group goal setting can improve group
performance because it affects social matching processes that might also lead
to motivation losses in groups (e.g., where individual standards regarding
ones own contribution to the group product are shifteddownwardsto match
low performance or the standards of weaker group members; see also Paulus
et al., 2002).
Even though these ideas and results are intuitively plausible, it is
important to note that there is no empirical evidence corroborating linksbetween different types of group goals and motivation losses. Moreover,
previous research has focused on task performance as a dependent variable.
Therefore, it is not clear whether different goal-setting strategies system-
atically change the expectations and judgements of group members that
underlie the occurrence of motivation losses in teams. A sucker effect arises
if group members realize or expect that other members of their team are
engaging in free-riding behaviour (Kerr & Bruun, 1983) and, therefore, this
phenomenon should not occur ifnofree-riding behaviour is expected. With
respect to social loafing, findings from previous research show that this canbe encouraged by lack of concern for group success or group failure (Hertel,
Konradt, & Orlikowski, 2004; Karau & Williams, 1993). Thus, placing value
on group success or on the prevention of group failure should counteract the
phenomenon of social loafing. The differentiation between the value placed
on success and failure is also introduced here in light of findings reported by
Higgins (1997), which show that the same behaviour might be motivated by
a promotion focus in self-regulation (i.e., to achieve positive states) or by a
prevention focus (to avoid negative states). Taken together, the following
hypothesis can thus be derived:
Hypothesis 2: Compared to control instructions (DYB), group goal-setting
techniques (DGGS, PGGS, PGGS IGS) enhance (a) the expectation that
other team members will not free-ride and (b) the subjective importance
of team success and team failure.
GROUP GOAL SETTING AND MOTIVATION GAINSIN GROUPS
With the exception of social facilitation induced by the mere presence of
(coacting) others (Bond & Titus, 1983), the possibility that groups can
contribute to motivation gains has, until recently, been largely overlooked
GROUP GOAL SETTING 405
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
9/33
(Stroebe et al., 1996). Nevertheless, an emerging body of research suggests
that group contexts provide specific stimuli that can motivate individuals to
exert more effort in groups than they do when working on the same task
individually. This basic phenomenon is called motivation gain. Whereas
the existence of such phenomena is now becoming widely accepted, there is
still debate about how many different motivation gains can and should be
distinguished (for recent reviews see Haslam, 2004; Hertel, 2000; Wegge,
2004).
In the present study, we focus on a motivation gain referred to associal
compensation. Williams and Karau (1991, p. 571) proposed that under some
conditions people may work harder in a collective setting than in a coactive
setting in order to compensate for others in their group. In support of this
idea, Karau and Williams (1997) and Williams and Karau (1991) foundevidence that group members sometimes compensate for the deficiencies of
other group members on a collective task (e.g., group brainstorming) in
order to ensure group success. Thus, contrary to the sucker effect, work
motivation is enhanced when a group member realizes or anticipates that
other group members are performing poorly (e.g., because of low work
motivation or low ability). Based on previous research, individuals
readiness to socially compensate for other group member should be
increased if the group task is perceived as meaningful (e.g., the task itself
is interesting and valuable) and if the person is concerned about how thegroups performance is evaluated (e.g., by other co-workers or by a
supervisor or other external agencies). Moreover, Williams and Karau
(1991, p. 580) suggest that social compensation should also be more
pronounced if the group is relatively small, when it appears that the
individual must continue to remain in the group, and at earlier stages of
the collective process. In addition, social compensation in teams should be
more likely if group cohesion is high (Karau & Hart, 1998) and if group
members identify with other members of the group so that the group is
perceived as a salient part of ones own social identity (Haslam, 2004;Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003).
To our knowledge, there is almost no research that has examined possible
links between group goal setting and social compensation or other related
processes (e.g., social identification, task interest) that may contribute to this
relationship. Indeed, aside from a few studies showing that PGGS can
enhance group cohesion (Wegge & Kleinbeck, 1996; Widmeyer &
Ducharme, 1997), we have no indication that GGS has an impact on these
variables. However, having a clear performance goal and corresponding
feedback often makes tasks more valuable and intrinsically motivating
(Fried & Ferris, 1987; Mento, Locke, & Klein, 1992). Moreover, at the level
of individual performance and individual goal setting there is some evidence
showing that self-set goals increase intrinsic motivation, especially when
406 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
10/33
these goals are challenging (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot,
2000; Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988). In addition, thinking or talking as a
group about a common group goal inherently promotes a team focus
(Haslam et al., in press; Wegge & Haslam, 2003). Hence, it would be
expected that group goal setting has the power to promote the emergence of
social compensation along with feelings and judgements that bolster this
phenomenon. This leads to:
Hypothesis 3: Compared to control instructions (DYB), group goal-
setting techniques (DGGS, PGGS, PGGS IGS) enhance (a) readiness
to engage in social compensation, (b) group cohesion, (c) group
identification, and (d) intrinsic work motivation in groups.
A final objective of the study is to assess the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the three different group goal-setting strategies. Is it effective
to combine group goal setting and individual goal setting in teams
(PGGS IGS)? As successful work in groups (e.g., flying a plane) often
requires specific group members to do a specific job, adding individual goal-
setting procedures related to the subtasks of group members (e.g., flying
safely, being polite to passengers) seems a logical supplement to general
group goal setting (e.g., to produce high customer satisfaction). However, to
date, this type of goal-setting strategy has received little empirical attention(Crown & Rosse, 1995; Matsui et al., 1987; Mitchell & Silver, 1990) and
results are mixed (e.g., Mitchell and Silver, 1990, found no beneficial effect
of adding individual goals to group goals, whereas Matsui et al., 1987,
reported performance enhancements for the same manipulation). Therefore,
it is not clear if, and under which circumstances, this strategy might be
effectivein particular, because studies also differ with respect to the tasks
employed. Matsui et al., for example, used an additive task with low task
interdependence, whereas Mitchell and Silver employed a task in which
task interdependence was very high and competition (due to negative goalinterdependence introduced by an individual goal) was detrimental to
group performance. Accordingly, the present study seeks to collect more
evidence pertaining to this issue. In the same vein, the study explores
potential differences between participative and directive group goal-setting
strategies. Are the processes through which these interventions improve
group performance similar or different? We know from previous work (e.g.,
Erez, 1995; Latham et al., 1988) that assigning goals in a directive tell and
sell style can be as effective as participative goal setting. However, very few
similar comparisons have been made at the group level (but see Kerr &
Tindale, 2004, pp. 22.722.8; Wegge, 2000) and, as a result, firm conclusions
about the impact of different strategies at this level are hard to draw. It
might be the case, for example, that participation is more important at
GROUP GOAL SETTING 407
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
11/33
the group level because the group context intensifies the desire to have a
voice in decisions (Haslam, Eggins, & Reynolds, 2003) or because directive
supervisor behaviour has less influence in front of a group, in particular
when the going gets tough (Wegge & Haslam, 2003, 2004).
In sum, to our knowledge, previous research has not examined whether
different strategies of group goal setting (e.g., DGGS, PGGS) do have the
power to prevent motivation losses in teams such as social loafing and/or
whether they promote the occurrence of motivation gains in teams such as
social compensation. Moreover, it is unclear if the most common group
goal-setting strategies have similar impact with respect to their effectiveness
in improving work motivation and performance in teams. Given the lack of
previous work on these issues, the present study is largely exploratory with
respect to the comparative efficacy of the three group goal-settinginterventions whose impact it investigated.
METHOD
Participants
The sample consisted of 60 male and 60 female students (mean age 24.46
years, range 19 to 37 years, SD 1.48) from a large German University
with different majors (psychology excluded). Participants were recruited bymeans of advertisements on notice boards in the university. They worked
together in 30 four-person (2 male, 2 female) groups. Each person received
7.50 Euros for participating in the study. No further financial incentives
(e.g., for goal attainment) were provided.
General procedure
On arrival, participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to
analyse the effectiveness of brainstorming in groups. Group members werefirst requested to answer a personality questionnaire. This questionnaire
asked participants to provide biographic and demographic details (e.g., age,
sex). Next, students had to work together on a brainstorming task. All
groups were asked to solve three different trials (see below). After Trial 2
was finished, the experimenter determined in which condition the group was
placed. The experimenter was a trained student assistant who was blind to
the hypotheses that were tested in this study. After this, he enacted the
corresponding group goal manipulation (e.g., PGGS or DGGS). Immedi-
ately after this manipulation, andbeforeTrial 3 of the brainstorming task, a
second questionnaire was distributed that assessed several key variables
(e.g., perceived participation, group goal commitment; see the measure
section below). After completion of Trial 3, intrinsic motivation and desire
408 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
12/33
for further team cooperation was assessed by means of a third ques-
tionnaire. Finally, participants were paid, debriefed, and asked not to
discuss the experiment with others.
Task and experimental design
All groups were asked to solve three trials of a brainstorming task. Each trial
lasted 3 minutes and presented a new problem. As a group, participants had
to find and write down individually as many different uses for common
objects (e.g., a pocket lamp) as they could. Group members were informed
that brainstorming typically seeks to produce as many different solutions
to a problem as possible and that, therefore, the number of unique uses
generated is the appropriate measure of team performance. After each trial,all group members were asked to read their ideas out aloud. The experi-
menter counted the number of unique uses (e.g., so that lighting a dark
room and lighting a cellar were counted as one idea) generated by all
group members and always verified his judgement with the group in a short
discussion.1
Trial 1 was a practice trial. In Trial 2 of the brainstorming task, all groups
were instructed to do their best (DYB) to establish a baseline for group
performance. In Trial 3, goal instructions varied according to the selected
group goal-setting strategy (see below). It should be noted that theexperimenter considered several points when deciding before Trial 3 in
which condition a group should be placed. First, it was important to have
similar performance values across the four conditions in Trial 2 because
otherwise it would be difficult to compare group performance. As the number
of groups was relatively small, the probability of fulfilling this desirable
condition by chance alone is low. Therefore, the experimenter followed the
principles of a matched-groups design: Groups were assigned as quad-
ruplets to conditions after performance in the baseline was known. As soon
as a match in baseline performance was found, the next available conditionwas selected randomly. Of course, to determine which group goals can be
assigned to DGGS groups, it is necessary to test some PGGS groups before.
Therefore, this type of group was tested most often. It was also decided that
six control groups would be sufficient for the purpose of this study.
1The correlations between quantity and quality of ideas (unique uses) was very high in this
study (e.g.,r .88,p5 .01 in Trial 2 andr .85,p5 .01 in Trial 3) so that only the number of
unique ideas is considered below as an indicator of group performance. This is not only
warranted in view of the high correlations but also because instructions emphasized the qualityof ideas and group goals were also formulated with respect to this performance indicator. It
should be also noted that brainstorming tasks often include additional features (building upon
other group members ideas) that were not present in our study.
GROUP GOAL SETTING 409
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
13/33
With the help of this procedure it was possible to hold both baseline
performance and goal difficulty constant across conditions even though
group assignment was still almost random.
For control groups (DYB, n 6), the DYB-instruction was simply
repeated in Trial 3. Groups in the participative group-goal condition
(PGGS,n 10) were asked to determine a specific group goal through group
discussion for Trail 3. For this purpose, each group member first made an
individual suggestion for the group goal. In order to facilitate a GGS effect,
the experimenter attempted to influence the suggestions of group members
by emphasizing that the group should agree on achallenginggroup goal. He
stated that, based on data from pilot studies, good groups achieve a
performance improvement of 40% from baseline. Thus, 40% more ideas
would constitute a challenging group goal. Next, individual suggestionswere collected and announced by the experimenter. The mean value of these
suggestions was computed and fed back to the group. As expected on the
basis of pilot testing, this value was usually below 40%. Next, the
experimenter asked the group to discuss these suggestions and to come up
with a more challenging group goal. The experimenter accepted every group
goal that represented an increase in difficulty (the mean of these goals is
between 34% and 38% in the three conditions with specific group goals, see
Table 3 below).
In the second participation condition (PGGS IGS, n 6), all groupmembers had to determine individual goals in combination with group goals
for Trial 3. After group goals had been established in the same manner as
PGGS, the experimenter explained that individual goal setting usually
assists group goal setting. Therefore, each group member was told to
formulate individual performance goals (e.g., finding 8 ideas) to support the
group goal (e.g., finding 32 ideas as a group in the last trial). The
experimenter then asked group members to write down these suggestions
and asked the group to discuss them so that the sum of the goals would be
consistent with the previously established group goal. The range of theseindividual goals was between 6 and 17 ideas (M 10.4 for the 24 relevant
participants) and the mean within-group variance of individual goals was
2.47 indicating that individual goals within groups were quite different.2
However, discussions were not difficult as all groups found it easy to agree
on a set of individual goals that was consistent with the group goal.
Finally, following the rules of a matched-group design, 8 of 10 group
goals that were set participatively in PGGS conditions were later assigned in
2Difficulty of individual performance goals is correlated both with individual performance in
baseline trials (r .74,p5 .01) and with difficulty of the first individual suggestion for a group
goal (r .41, p5 .05).
410 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
14/33
a tell and sell style by the experimenter in the directive group goal
condition (DGGS, n 8). He referred to results from pilot studies and
stated, for example, that 34% performance improvements from baseline
constitute a challenging but reachable group goal. The experimenter
then encouraged the group to strive for this goal and calculated the number
of ideas that needed to be generated in order to achieve this goal in the
last trial.
Measures
Constructs were assessed by observation on the part of the experimenter and
with the help of three questionnaires distributed during the experiment.
Unless stated otherwise below, all self-report items used in Questionnaires13 were composed and developed in a series of experiments summarized by
Wegge (for details see Wegge, 2004).
Observation by the experimenter
For each group, the experimenter noted on a special sheet several aspects of
the group process for each trial. These variables were: (a) individual
performance (the number of different uses in one trial), (b) group
performance (the total number of unique uses found in one trial by allgroup members, always verified with the group in a short discussion, see
above), (c) individual suggestions for a group goal, (d) individual suggestion
for an individual goal, and (e) chosen individual and group goals.
Questionnaire 1
To collect demographic data (e.g., with respect to age, gender, major),
several questions were asked before Trial 1. Gender was balanced across
conditions. As the age of group members also did not vary systematicallyacross the four experimental conditions (F .06,p5 .98), and because data
in this study is analysed at the group level (see below), these variables are not
considered further.
Questionnaire 2
This questionnaire was administered before Trial 2 and assessed the
following eight variables:
Perceived participation. As a manipulation check, participants with
specific group goals responded to the following two items using 4-point
scales ranging from low (1) to high (4): I had a real voice in determining
GROUP GOAL SETTING 411
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
15/33
which group goal we selected to strive for and In comparison to
the experimenter, my impact on the difficulty of group goal was low;
reverse coded).
Group goal commitment. This was measured by means of nine items
using 4-point response scales ranging from low (1) to high (4). These items
assessed different antecedents of commitment to goals that have been
identified as important in previous studies (see Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck,
& Alge, 1999): the value of goal attainment (e.g., If the group reaches its
goal, this will have pleasant consequences for me), expectancy of group
goal attainment (e.g., It is highly likely that we are a little bit better than
the group goal requires), and volitional strength during goal attainment (I
stick to the group goal even when I realize that my feelings divert me fromthis goal).
Group cohesion. This was assessed using six items, three indexing liking
of other group members (e.g., Quite frankly, I have to admit that I like the
other group members) and three items addressing pride in being a member
of the group (e.g., If you are a member of this group, you can feel proud).
Individuals responded to these items on 4-point response scales ranging
from low (1) to high (4).
Group identification. This was assessed with four items using 4-point
response scales ranging from low (1) to high (4) selected from Luhtanen and
Crocker (1992). Typical items were: My membership in this group has
much to do with how I feel as a person; The group I belong to is an
important reflection of who I am).
Social compensation. This was assessed by means of three items using 4-
point scales ranging from low (1) to high (4). A typical statement with which
participants stated their agreement was If other group members fail tosolve the group task because they do not have enough ability, I will work
especially hard to reach the group goal.
Value of group success andvalue of group failure. These were measured
with following two items: Please mark on the following scale how valuable
the success or failure of the group would be for you3 . . .. The value of
3
As success and failure are defined somehow differently in DYB groups (e.g., belonging tothe best groups is a success) and in groups with specific group goals (e.g., achieving the group
goal is a success), corresponding explanations were added in the specific questionnaires used in
these conditions.
412 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
16/33
success can range from 0 without value to 5 of very high value;
the value of failure can range from 0 without meaning to 5 very
meaningful.
Expect no free-riding. This was measured with three items using 4-point
scales ranging from low (1) to high (4). An illustrative item was, In my
group we have a free-rider who is taking advantage of other group
members (reverse coded).
Questionnaire 3
After Trial 3 of the brainstorming task, a final questionnaire was
administered. This incorporated measures of the following two constructs:
Intrinsic motivation. This was assessed before performance feedback by
means of following three items: Even if we were not successful in reaching
the group goal . . . (a) working on the group task was really fun, (d) the
group task was interesting, and (c) during the group task time was passing
very quickly. Individuals responded to these items on a 5-point scale
ranging from low (1) to high (5).
Desire for further team cooperation. This was measured after performancefeedback from the experimenter as an index of future work motivation.
For this measure, individuals responded to three items (e.g., I can imagine
solving more tasks with this group) once again using 4-point answering scales
ranging from low (1) to high (4).
RESULTS
Measurement reliability, level of analysis, and descriptive data
Based on calculated alpha reliabilities, the measurement reliability of all
scales was good (see Table 1). Thus, all constructs are measured in a
consistent way.4 In this study, performance of whole intact groups is
examined. Even though individual performance data is available, for
theoretical reasons the level of analysis is the group (for a discussion of
4This is also true for the variable social compensation because this scale was comprised of
only three items. Here, an alpha of .60 still indicates a satisfactory measurement consistency
(Cortina, 1993). This is because the alpha statistic strongly depends on the number of items. Analpha of .50 would indicate, for example, a mean item correlation of .25 for a scale with 3 items
and this would be equal to an alpha of .77 for a scale with 10 items having the same average item
correlation.
GROUP GOAL SETTING 413
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
17/33
TAB
LE1
AlphaR
eliabilities(inparenthesis),A
verageWithin-Group-Variances(V),AverageWithin-Group
Agreement(Rwg),GroupMe
ans(M),
StandardDeviations(SD)andCorrelationsofVariablesforallG
roups
Variable
V
Rwg
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.group
goalcommitment1
0.25
0.91
2.8
0.2
(.79)
2.group
cohesion
0.32
0.92
2.4
0.2
.47*
(.85)
3.group
identification
0.26
0.88
1.3
0.3
7.02
.23
(.83)
4.socialcompensation
0.34
0.82
3.1
0.3
.53*
*
.25
.37*
(.60)
5.intrinsicmotivation
0.57
0.84
3.8
0.4
.38
.51**
.25
.49**
(.70)
6.expect
nofree-riding
0.28
0.89
1.6
0.3
.24
.35*
.03
.40*
.18
(.74)
7.valueofgroupsuccess
1.20
0.60
2.2
0.8
.65*
*
.23
7.04
.41*
.41*
7.13
()
8.valueofgroupfailure
1.01
0.50
1.3
0.5
.47*
.32
.15
.38*
.34
7.18
.74**
()
9.furtherteamcooperation
0.41
0.82
2.9
0.2
.33
.53**
.11
.23
.52**
.14
.33
.49**
(.74)
10.performanceimprovement
10.1
5.6
.29
.17
.23
.18
.40*
.05
.20
.32
.31
Notes:
1n
24fourpersongroups(otherwisen
30fourpersongroups);*
p5
.05,**p5
.01.
414
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
18/33
these issues see Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Thus, with the exception of
alpha reliabilities, statistical analysis is based on group means. In order to
check whether aggregation at the group level is appropriate, within-
group variance (V) of variables was calculated. This measure is easily
interpretable and recommended5 by Schmidt and Hunter (1989). As
documented in Table 1, the average within-group variance is below the
critical value of 1.00 for almost all variables indicating that analysing the
data at the group level is justified. A more fine-grained examination of this
index reveals that only 7 out of 204 group values are larger than 1.00 for
variables measured with scales. For the two one-item measures (value of
group success and group failure) the within-group variance is higher.
However, only 9 out of 60 groups have values greater 1.50 so for these
variables there is moderate within-group consistency. As most priorresearchers have used the Rwg-index developed by James, Demaree, and
Wolf (1984) to estimate within-group agreement, we also calculated this
index (assuming random measurement error). Similar conclusions can be
drawn with respect to this data. Mean values of the Rwg-index for all
constructs that were measured using scales are higher than .70, a value
typically considered to indicate substantial within-group agreement. For
the two one-item measures, average within-group agreement is lower.
Accordingly, taken together, this analysis indicates that aggregation to the
group level is justified as there is moderate to very high within-groupconsistency.
In view of the observed correlations, the following points are worth
noting. First, all correlations are meaningful. For example, high group goal
commitment correlates positively with high group cohesion and with
readiness to engage in social compensation. Second, in most cases the
correlations are of low to moderate strength. Thus, it can be concluded that
different scales (e.g., group cohesion and group identification) do indeed
measure different constructs. Third, the correlations with respect to
improvement in group performance (ideas in Trial 3 minus ideas in Trial 2)are in line with various theories of work motivation. Here we obtain
positive correlations between performance improvement and group goal
5This measure is similar to the typically computed Rwg-index but less dependent on scale
features. For a detailed discussion about differences see Schmidt and Hunter (1989) as well as
James, Demaree, and Wolf (1993). Some researchers argue that ICC values should be computed
for this purpose, too. These values determinebetweengroup inconsistency. However, we follow
the argument of George and James (1993) who explained why documenting between group
inconsistency is not required for justifying aggregation at the group level if consistency withingroups is assumed. According to the terms defined by Klein and Kozlowski (2000), our model
for aggregation of the data to the group level is a consensus model. Thus, we do not analyse the
variancebetween groups but only the agreement within the group.
GROUP GOAL SETTING 415
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
19/33
commitment, group cohesion, group identification, and value of group
success. These correlations are not significant in this sample. Nevertheless,
they are of similar strength to effects observed in recent meta-analyses that
have examined the impact of these variables (e.g., r .23 for the goal
commitmentperformance relationship; see Klein et al., 1999). Finally, there
is also one significant correlation with respect to performance improvement
in this study. Performance enhancement is correlated positively with
intrinsic task motivation, r .40, p5 .05. As this variable was measured
aftertask completion, the correlation probably reflects not only the effects of
motivation on performance but also the effects of group performance on
motivation.
Manipulation checks
Table 2 presents data relevant to examination of the effectiveness of the
experimental manipulations. First, with respect to the degree of perceived
participation it was found, as expected, that group members in
participative groups (PGGS and PGGS IGS) reported having more
input in determining the group goal than group members with assigned
group goals, t73.46, p5 .01. There were no differences between PGGS
and PGGS IGS and both values are significantly higher (p5 .05) than
values from DGGS groups. Thus, in both conditions group membersperceived themselves to have more voice than in DGGS groups. Second, as
expected, it was also found that group goal commitment was high in all
these conditions. Thus, goal setting was effective in establishing commit-
ment to group goals. Third,baseline performance (ideas in Trial 2) did not
differ significantly across the four experimental conditions even though the
number of groups in each condition is rather small. Thus, experimental
procedures to assign groups to conditions were effective. Finally, a further
potential confound in this study is group goal difficulty as a direct
comparison between directive and participative goals is only justified if thegoal difficulty is similar. Furthermore, a GGS effect is only expected for
teams striving for challenging group goals. Again, the data with respect to
both issues (see Table 2) indicates that all manipulations were successful.
Compared to baseline performance (ideas in Trial 2), all specific group
goals can be considered to have been difficult. On average, groups
intended (or were asked by the experimenter when goals were assigned)
to improve their performance by more than 30% (DGGS38%;
PGGS38%; PGGSIGS 34%). This is almost twice as much as
the average performance improvement usually observed in goal-setting
studies. Thus, group goal difficulty was high and comparable across
conditions with specific group goals and, therefore, a GGS effect should be
observed.
416 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
20/33
TAB
LE2
Means(M)andstandar
ddeviations(SD)ofselected
variablesandcorresponding
resultsfrom
MANOVAs
DYB(n
6)
DGGS(n
8)
PGGS(n
10)
PGGS
IGS
(n
6)
C-A
D-P
P1-P2
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Perceivedparticipation
2.3
0.7
3.0
0.3
3.1
0.3
73.46**
Groupgoalcommitment
2.9
0.2
2.8
0.2
2.7
0.2
Ideasintr
ial2
27.0
5.5
28.4
6.5
28.3
9.8
26.8
2.6
Groupgoalsfortrial3
38.3
8.9
37.6
12.3
34.2
3.9
Ideasintr
ial3
32.8
8.4
40.0
5.0
40.1
12.9
36.5
4.6
Performan
ceimprovement
5.8
a
6.3
11.6
b
5.5
11.8
b
5.6
9.7
b
3.8
C-A(trial23)72.12*
Notes:DY
B
doyourbest,DGGS
direc
tivegroupgoalsetting,PGGS
participativegroupgoalsetting,
PGGS
IGS
PGGSincombinationwith
individual
goalsetting,C-A
HelmertcontrastDYB-controlvs.allotherconditions,D-P
Helmertcon
trastdirectivevs.participative
conditions,
P1-P2H
elmertcontrastPGGSvs.PGGS
IGS;*p5
.05,**p5
.01,onlysignificantt-valuesarepresented.
a,
b
indicatehomogeneoussub
-groupings
thatdiffer
accordingtoadditionallycondu
ctedposthoctestswithp5
.10
.
417
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
21/33
Statistical group comparisons
To test mean differences across the four experimental conditions,
MANOVAs were used in which data from all groups is analysed
simultaneously. Here the use of Helmert contrasts is most appropriate
because this form of contrast compares (a) the first group (DYB) to the
remaining groups (C A, this reveals overall GGS effects), (b) the second
group (DGGS) to the remaining groups (D P, this reveals differences
due to participation) and (c) the third group (PGGS) to the last
group (P1P2, this shows differences due to adding IGS). It should be
noted that this form of contrast does not constitute a post hoc com-
parison of groups as our corresponding hypotheses require testing exactly
these differences. In addition, results from post hoc tests (Duncan)are reported below to describe other significant differences between
groups in order to provide a more fine-grained analysis of motivational
variables.
Tests of Hypothesis 1
As shown in Table 2, consistent with goal-setting theory and in support of
Hypothesis 1, striving for specific, difficult group goals (DGGS, PGGS, and
PGGS IGS) improved group performance more than striving for DYBgoals. A MANOVA with the factor group (the four group goal conditions)
and the factor trial (Trial 2 vs. Trial 3) as a repeated-measures factor was
conducted in order to examine this effect more closely. In this analysis, two
effects were significant: the main effect for trial, F(1, 26) 95.14, p5 .01,
indicating that all groups improved their performance over time, and the
theoretically relevant contrast of the interaction (DYB vs. all other groups
for performance differences across trials),t(26)72.12,p5 .05, indicating
that all groups with specific group goals showed improved performance
relative to DYB control groups. As can be seen from Table 2, there wasevidence of a substantial GGS effect as groups with challenging,
specific group goals improved performance about twice as much as control
groups.
To estimate the effect size of this interaction,6 an additional regression
analyses was conducted in which a dummy variable was computed that
recoded the four conditions in such a way that DYB groups had the value 0
and all other groups the value 1. As expected, a regression of this dummy
6Unfortunately, the SPSS (11.0) output for the MANOVA procedure does not report effect
sizes for Helmert contrasts (solely t-values are given), so additional computations are necessary
to get this information.
418 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
22/33
variable (representing the corresponding Helmert contrast C A) on
performance improvements from Trial 2 to Trial 3 yielded a significant
effect, standardized .39, R2 .15, F(1, 29) 5.1, p5 .03. Thus, about
15% of variance in group performance improvement was based on the use
of group goal-setting interventions.
Tests of Hypothesis 2
Table 3 presents data with respect to those motivational variables that
were expected to underlie the GGS effect. Do group goal-setting
techniques decrease the probability of a sucker effect by enhancing the
expectation that other team members showno free-riding behaviour? This
Hypothesis (2a) finds only weak support in the data as the correspondingHelmert contrast (C A) is not significant. However, the results of post
hoc testing indicate that the combination of both group and individual
goals (PGGS IGS) enhances this expectation compared to control
groups. In line with expectations, the results also show that the value of
group success, t(26)72.15, p5 .05, and the value of group failure,
t(26)72.62, p5 .02, is indeed much higher in groups with specific
group goals than in DYB groups (Hypothesis 2b). As social loafing in
groups is typically considered to be a motivation loss that is linked with
low values for group success and low value of group failure, socialloafing should therefore be less likely in groups striving for challenging
group goals.
Tests of Hypothesis 3
With respect to potential motivation gains four variables are relevant. As
expected, groups striving for specific, difficult group goals reported a higher
readiness to engage in social compensation than DYB groups. However,
results from post hoc tests and the significant Helmert contrast comparingDGGS to the two participative conditions (DP), indicate that this finding
was only obtained for DGGS groups. Thus, only directive group goal-
setting procedures increased group members readiness to compensate for
other weak group members, t(26) 2.71, p5 .01. A parallel result was
found with respect to the variable intrinsic motivation. Once again, DGGS
was the best strategy for enhancing this motivational state, t(26) 2.17,
p5 .05. With respect to group cohesion there were no significant differences.
However, for the group identification measure we found the expected
pattern such that groups with specific, challenging group goals identified
more with their group than DYB groups, t(26)72.23, p5 .04. Finally,
the desire for further team activity was generally quite high and did not vary
across conditions.
GROUP GOAL SETTING 419
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
23/33
TAB
LE3
Means
(M)andstandarddeviations
(SD)ofvariablesacrossfour
groupgoalconditionsandco
rrespondingresultsfrom
MA
NOVAs
DYB(n
6)
DGGS(n
8)
PGGS(n
10)
PGGSIG
S
(n
6)
C-A
D-P
P1-P2
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
S
D
Expectno
free-riding
1.5
a
0.4
1.7
ab
0.2
1.6
ab
0.3
1.8
b
0
.1
Valueofg
roupsuccess
1.6
a
1.0
2.5
b
0.6
2.3
b
0.5
2.1
ab
0
.9
72.15*
Valueofg
roupfailure
0.9
a
0.6
1.6
b
0.5
1.5
b
0.3
1.2
ab
0
.5
72.62**
Socialcom
pensation
2.9
a
0.3
3.3
b
0.2
3.0
a
0.2
3.1
a
0
.1
2.71**
Groupcohesion
2.5
0.2
2.4
0.3
2.4
0.2
2.4
0
.2
Groupide
ntification
1.1
a
0.1
1.4
b
0.3
1.4
b
0.2
1.3
ab
0
.1
72.23*
Intrinsicm
otivation
3.6
a
0.2
4.1
b
0.4
3.8
ab
0.5
3.7
a
0
.4
2.17*
Furtherte
amcooperation
3.0
0.2
3.1
0.4
3.0
0.2
2.9
0
.1
Notes:DY
B
doyourbest,DGGS
direc
tivegroupgoalsetting,PGGS
participativegroupgoalsetting,
PGGS
IGS
PGGSincombinationwith
individual
goalsetting,C-A
Helmertcon
trastDYB-controlvs.allotherc
onditions,D-P
Helmertcontra
stdirectivevs.participativeconditions,P1-
P2
Helm
ertcontrastPGGSvs.PGGS
IGS;*p5
.05,**p5
.01;onlysignificantt-valuesarepresented;a
,b
indicatehomogeneoussub-groupingsthat
differacco
rdingtoadditionallyconducted
posthoctestswithp5
.10.
420
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
24/33
Mediational analysis
We intimated above that the prevention of motivation losses and the
promotion of motivation gains in groups could be a causal processes
responsible for performance improvements arising from group goal setting.
To explore this possibility, exploratory hierarchical regression analyses
were conducted. First, a variable was computed that recoded the four
conditions such that DYB groups had the value 0 and all other groups the
value 1. As already described above, a regression of this variable on
performance improvements from Trial 2 to Trial 3 yielded a significant
effect, standardized .39, R2 .15, F(1, 29) 5.1, p5 .03. Next, we
tested whether this effect could be substantially reduced by incorporating
the three potential mediator variables7 in the regression before the dummyvariable is entered. This was not the case for value of success, .37,
p5 .06, or group identification, .43, p5 .03. However, when the value
of group failure is entered as a potential mediating variable, the effect
was reduced, .31, p5 .12, R2 .11, reduction in R2 .04. This finding
suggests that the value placed on group failure plays an important role in
explaining group goal-setting effects on performance in brainstorming
groups. That is, teams striving for difficult group goals seem to be
concerned to avoid failure and this contributes to good brainstorming
performance.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study are important in several aspects. First, we found the
expected group goal-setting effect in groups performing group brainstorm-
ing tasks. This effect was substantial in magnitude with groups striving for
challenging group goals generating approximately twice as many additional
ideas (11 ideas) as DYB control groups (6 ideas). On this basis, it can be
concluded that group goal-setting techniques do indeed have the capacity toimprove brainstorming performance in groups. As performance improve-
ments were similar for all three of the group goal-setting strategies (DGGS,
PGGS, and PGGS IGS) examined in this study, we can draw the
additional conclusion that this effect is not only substantial but also quite
robust: It can be achieved in several ways. In addition, if we consider that
performance improvements in DYB groups probably reflect group learning
7
Following the basic logic of Baron and Kenny (1986), there are three potential mediatingvariables that might underlie the interaction found for group performance because similar
interactions (CA) were found for these variables (Table 3). A further test in which all three
variables were considered did not lead to different results.
GROUP GOAL SETTING 421
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
25/33
processes, it can further be concluded that this effect is found even when
these learning processes are controlled.
A second objective of this study was to explore how group goal setting
improves work motivation and performance in teams. With respect to this
goal, several new insights were gained. Previous research has shown that
group goal setting improves performance in teams for cognitive reasons
(e.g., by motivating group planning and knowledge exchange; Weldon &
Weingart, 1993). Here, we proposed that group goal setting (GGS) also
improves group performance for motivational reasons. It was argued that
GGS enhances work motivation in teams by preventing motivation losses
such as social loafing and sucker effects and by promoting motivation gains
such as social compensation and related phenomena (e.g., group identifica-
tion). In support of this idea, we found (a) that PGGS IGS increased theexpectation that no-one is free-riding in the group (thereby reducing the
likelihood of a sucker effect), (b) that GGS increased the value of group
success and the value of group failure (thereby counteracting social loafing),
(c) that GGS increased group identification, and (d) that DGGS, in
particular, increased intrinsic task motivation and the readiness of group
members to engage in social compensation.
The finding that the establishment of group goals has an impact on group
identification is quite novel (Wegge & Haslam, 2003). As group identifica-
tion is an important variable in explaining other motivation gains (e.g.,social labouring) and motivations losses (e.g., soldiering) in teams, and
because high group identification can also promote organizational citizen-
ship behaviour (e.g., helping new colleagues; Haslam, Powell, & Turner,
2000; Tyler & Blader, 2000) and other forms of positive organizational
functioning (e.g., see Haslam et al., 2003), this observation deserves further
attention (see van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003; Worchel, Rothgerber,
Day, Hart, & Butemeyer, 1998). Although the present results suggest that
this effect is not especially strong, group goal setting did increase group
identificationsuggesting that this manipulation also has the potential to beuseful in situations where achieving high team identification is a meaningful
objective in itself.
Considering these findings together, it indeed seems promising to examine
the possible links between goal-setting theory and social psychological
processes pertaining to motivation losses and motivation gains in teams.
However, it is worth noting that the reduction of motivation losses and the
promotion of motivation gains that was observed on the basis of
corresponding attitude measures didnot mediate the performance improve-
ments produced by the various group goal-setting strategies. Only one
variable (i.e., the value of group failure) emerged as a significant mediating
variable in this respect. Thus, even though some attitudes related to
motivation gains and losses in teams varied significantly as a function of
422 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
26/33
condition, there may well have been other processes that were responsible
for the performance improvements obtained in this study (e.g., investing
more cognitive effort, differences in search of long term memory, a reduction
of evaluation apprehension; see Paulus et al., 2002; Wegge, 2001). This is
clearly an issue that merits investigation in future research.
Third, this study provided an opportunity to explore potential differences
in the efficacy of three different group goal-setting strategies. With respect to
this issue, the findings are rather meagre as the differences between
conditions were weak. It was not possible, for example, to show that
striving for a combination of participatively set group goals and partici-
patively set individual performance goals was superior to striving for group
goals alone (PGGS or DGGS). Even though previous evidence regarding
this issue is mixed, we expected a positive effect for PGGS IGS becausecommitment to group goals should be increased. This assumption can also
be derived from findings in the area of volitional psychology which
document an increase in goal commitment and goal fulfilment as a result of
having clear, specific implementation intentions (e.g., Brandsta tter, Leng-
felder, & Gollwitzer, 2001). Why was there no comparable effect in the
present study? In our view, the most plausible explanation is that the rather
simple group task used here was not one that is especially likely to lead to
improvement in goal commitment and performance due to combining both
types of goals. That is, group brainstorming was an additive task and therewas no specialization of labour within the group. Therefore, establishing a
common group goal (to produce 32 ideas as a group) almost inevitably
makes it clear which goals individual members should strive for (i.e., if the
group has four members then every group member should produce 8 ideas).
It might therefore be the case that the effectiveness of this group goal-setting
strategy would be more pronounced in relation to more complex tasks (i.e.,
those with high task interdependence or high task complexity). Nevertheless,
we should not forget that, consistent with the findings from Crown and
Rosse (1995), the data from the present study also indicate that acombination of both goals might establish a group-supportive performance
orientation as expectations that other group members willnot free ride were
only increased in this condition. Hence, this group goal-setting strategy
could prove to be most appropriate in situations where sucker effects are a
potential problem.
In sum, the results of this study clearly demonstrate that goal-setting
theory has to be extended when moving from the individual to the group
level. Moving beyond the work of Weldon and Weingart (1993), the study
has shown that the effects of different group goals on group performance
rely on the promotion of motivation gains and the prevention of multiple
motivation losses in groups. Therefore, these motivational processes should
be considered as important mediating variables in an extended theory of
GROUP GOAL SETTING 423
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
27/33
group goal setting. However, it is also worth noting that further work
linking goal-setting research to research traditions within social psychology
will not only be of benefit to group goal-setting research. It can be expected
that social psychological theories that deal with motivational phenomena in
groups (e.g., social compensation, social labouring) can also be substantially
advanced (see Ellemers et al., 2004, for a similar argument). In particular,
there seems to be considerable potential for integrating the principles of the
social identity approach (Haslam, 2004; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003)
with the tenets of goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002) in order to
develop a more complete explanation of a range of motivational phenomena
in groups.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This study has several limitations. In the first instance, caution in
interpreting the results is warranted due to the rather low statistical power
at the group level. However, it should be also noted that the strategy we
developed to cope with some of the problems linked to small samples (e.g.,
using a matched group design) was successful as several important
preconditions (e.g., having a similar baseline performance before interven-
tions are enacted, having constant goal difficulty across conditions) were
achieved. Nevertheless, further replications with a larger number of groupswould of course be desirable.
Caution in generalizing these findings is also warranted due to the fact
that we examined ad hoc groups of students in a laboratory. While
conducting a study in a laboratory context has some advantages (e.g., in
allowing a fine-grained analysis of different group goal-setting procedures),
it also has limitations. We do not know, for example, whether the behaviour
of university students and their temporary supervisor in a short-term
setting can be generalized to the behaviour of employees at the workplace
where career success and promotion are at stake. However, especially in therealm of goal-setting research there is ample evidence that findings from the
laboratory generalize to more realistic conditions (Locke, 1986; Locke &
Latham, 2002). Primarily, this is because this generalization is based on
soundtheorythat is validated in an array of contexts (see Haslam & Reicher,
in press, for a similar argument). Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that
corresponding results to those obtained here could also be obtained in
organizational teams. Nevertheless, as laboratory groups are necessarily
decontextualized relative to applied settings, and because these groups
neither have a common history nor a common future, replication studies in
field settings certainly seem warranted.
Moreover, we should be also aware of the fact that potentially influential
factors were not measured (e.g., perceptions regarding indispensability of
424 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
28/33
own efforts, evaluation apprehension) and not manipulated in this study.
Even though the limited evidence we have so far indicates that advantages of
group goal setting are probably task-specific (Wegge & Kleinbeck, 1996;
Weldon & Weingart, 1993), task demands were also not systematically
varied in this study. Future research should address this lacuna by
examining other group tasks and the impact of task interdependence during
teamwork. Of course, it also remains to be seen how effective group
brainstorming might become if the practice of setting challenging group
goals were combined with other interventions (e.g., use of a trained
facilitator, brain-writing techniques, or procedures that ask group members
to build on the ideas of other group members in a round-robin manner).
Moreover, in this study we focused only on thequantity of ideas (checking
and correcting for very similar ideas), not their quality. Because priorresearch has found that there is often a strong association between the
number of ideas and the flexibility and originality of ideas (Thompson, 2003,
p. 98), we did not attempt a more detailed analysis of our data. However, a
more sophisticated analysis in terms of originality or flexibility of ideas
produced by group members could potentially yield additional insights (e.g.,
see Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, & Haslam, in press). Moreover, this might be
another avenue for further research as such an analysis might help to
uncover the cognitive processes that are involved in producing group goal-
setting effects in brainstorming groups.Two further limitations of this study are linked to the procedures we used
for group brainstorming. First, the available time for finding ideas was
rather short (3 minutes). In brainstorming tasks, ideas are generated with
low effort and difficulty in particular at the beginning of the process (Oxley
et al., 1996; Paulus et al., 2002). Thus, the impact of motivational forces is
probably much easier to demonstrate over a longer time period. Future
studies, therefore, should examine whether group goal setting is even more
effective over longer time periods (e.g., 15 minutes). That said, it was notable
that group goal setting significantly improved performance even under therestricted time conditions selected in this studyso in many ways this was a
stringent test of our arguments.
Second, social loafing effects occur mainly in situations where group
members contributions are not identifiable and where performance feed-
back is not available (Karau & Williams, 1993; Paulus et al., 2002). As
group members were asked to read their ideas out loud to the rest of the
group after each trial, group members performance was identifiable and
evaluated by other group members and the experimenter. Thus, social
loafing would not necessarily be expected to have occurred in this context
and, accordingly, it would be interesting to investigate whether group goal-
setting effects are stronger in conditions where social loafing is more likely
(e.g., when ideas generation is anonymous; see Erez & Somech, 1996).
GROUP GOAL SETTING 425
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
29/33
Again, though, when we consider that social loafing was unlikely to occur in
this experiment and that DYB instructions also motivated groups to
increase their brainstorming performance, the demonstration of a group
goal-setting effect in comparison to DYB groups is nontrivial and all the
more impressive.
Finally, it should be also emphasized that improving group performance
in organizations necessarily involves much more than just using the most
appropriate leadership (goal-setting) technique. To make the use of group
work in organizations a real success, we also have to take into consideration
a range of other factors. These include, for example, effective group task
design (Ulich & Weber, 1996; van Vijfeijken, Kleingeld, van Tuijl, Algera, &
Thierry, 2002), relevant group feedback (Deshon et al., 2004; Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996; Schmidt & Kleinbeck, 1997), group training and groupdevelopment (Kozlowski, Gully, Nasson, & Smith, 1999) and appropriate
group compensation (DeMatteo, Eby, & Sundstrom, 1998; Hertel et al.,
2004). Nonetheless, the preliminary signs are that, added to these factors,
group goal-setting techniques can be a very effective tool in the
organizational psychologists armoury. On this basis, we encourage
researchers as well as practitioners to use these strategies in order to
improve brainstorming and other related forms of performance in teams.
REFERENCES
Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S. A. (in press). Social identity and the recognition
of creativity in groups. British Journal of Social Psychology.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173 1182.
Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 94, 265 292.
Brandsta tter, V., Lengfelder, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Implementation intentions and
efficient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 946 960.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research
from the shop floor to the executive site. Journal of Management, 23, 239 290.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha: An examination of theory and applications.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98104.
Crown, D. F., & Rosse, J. G. (1995). Yours, mine and ours: Facilitating group productivity
through the integration of individual and group goals. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 64, 138 150.
DeMatteo, J. S., Eby, L. T., & Sundstrom, E. (1998). Team-based rewards: Current
empirical evidence and directions for future research. Research in Organizational Behavior,
20, 141 183.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004).
A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and
team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035 1056.
426 WEGGE AND HASLAM
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
30/33
Durham, C. C., Locke, E. A., Poon, J. M. L., & McLeod, P. L. (2000). Effects of group goals
and time pressure on group efficacy, information seeking, strategy and performance. Human
Performance, 13, 115 138.
Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work:A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 29, 459 478.
Erez, M. (1995). Prospects of participative management in developing countries: The role of
socio-cultural environment. In D. M. Saunders & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), New approaches to
employee management (Vol. 3, pp. 171 196). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Erez, M., & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects of
culture and group based motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1513 1537.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and
meta-analysis.Personnel Psychology, 40, 287 322.
George, J. M., & James, L. R. (1993). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited:
Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis and a recent application of within and betweenanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 798 804.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. (2000). Short-term
and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over
time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316 330.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing social
and personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 76, 83113.
Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational
psychology: Concepts, controversies and contributions. In G. P. Hodgkinson & K. Ford(Eds.),International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 39 118).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization and work
motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable
organizational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 319 339.
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (in press). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding
dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Postmes, T., Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Webley, P. (in press). Sticking
to our guns: Social identity as a basis for the maintenance of commitment to faltering
organizational projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Hertel, G. (2000). Motivation gains in groups: A brief review of the state of the art. Zeitschrift
fur Sozialpsychologie, 31, 169 175.
Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal
setting, task interdependence and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 128.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280 1300.
Hinsz, V. B. (1995). Goal setting by groups performing an additive task: A comparison with
individual goal setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 965990.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability
with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 8598.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306 309.
Karau, S. J., & Hart, J. W. (1998). Group cohesiveness and social loafing: Effects of a social
interaction manipulation on individual motivation within groups.Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research and Practice, 2, 185 191.
GROUP GOAL SETTING 427
Downlo
adedby[McMasterUniver
sity]at12:2811December
2014
7/25/2019 Team based interactions
31/33
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681 706.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and
social compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 1, 156 168.Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819 828.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of members effort and group motivation
losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 7894.
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review
of