Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 2005, 14 (4), 400430

Improving work motivation and performance in brainstorming groups: The eects of three group goal-setting strategies
Jurgen Wegge
University of Munich (LMU), Germany

S. Alexander Haslam
School of Psychology, Exeter, UK

An experiment was conducted with 30 groups (n 120) solving brainstorming tasks under four dierent group goal conditions: do your best (DYB), directive group goal setting (DGGS), participative group goal setting (PGGS), and PGGS in combination with individual goal setting (PGGS IGS). As expected, all groups with specic and dicult group goals performed better than DYB control groups. It is hypothesized that these positive eects of group goal setting on brainstorming performance arise because group goal setting counteracts motivation losses such as social loang. In addition, group goal setting should promote motivation gains arising from social compensation and related cognitive processes, in particular high identication with the group. Consistent with this hypothesis, it was found that group goal setting increased team identication, the readiness to compensate for other weak group members, the value of group success, and the value of group failure. Mediation analysis also indicated that concern to avoid group failure was partly responsible for performance improvements. Finally, no large dierences were found between PGGS IGS and PGGS or DGGS. On this basis group goal setting can be considered a robust strategy for improving work 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 Jurgen Wegge, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen (LMU), Department of Psychology, Psychology of Excellence, Martiusstrasse 4, D-80802 Munchen, Germany. Email: wegge@psy.uni-muenchen.de 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. 2005 Psychology Press Ltd http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320500349961

GROUP GOAL SETTING

401

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) satises 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 specic 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 (production blocking) is a powerful process that can hamper team performance. In addition, social loang can occur when group members are not individually identiable 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 oer several recommendations for improving traditional group brainstorming. For example, prior research has documented the ecacy of using a facilitator who is trained to minimize production blocking and evaluation apprehension (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 eciency of setting a specic and challenging group goal (e.g., trying to nd 35 new ideas for solving a problem as a group in 5 minutes). More specically, the study examines the eects 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).

402

WEGGE AND HASLAM

Almost no prior research has examined if and how dierent group goalsetting 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 rst 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 eects of group goal setting on brainstorming performance arise because group goal setting counteracts the occurrence of motivation losses in teams such as social loang. In addition, this procedure should promote motivation gains such as social compensation (e.g., a deliberate decision to compensate for the weaknesses of other team members) and related cognitive and emotional processes resulting from high identication with the group. These putative links between dierent 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 dierences in task performance. The current evidence on this question is conclusive. It has consistently been found that specic and dicult performance goals lead to better performance than easy goals or unspecic goal instructionstypied by invitations to Do your best. The eects 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 of group 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 eect sizes derived from

GROUP GOAL SETTING

403

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 specic dicult group goal is almost one standard deviation higher (d .92) than the performance of groups that do not have clear goals (DYB-instructions). This eect is referred to here as the GGS-eect and building on this work we propose that it will also be observed in brainstorming groups: Hypothesis 1: Compared to control instructions (DYB), group goalsetting techniques (DGGS, PGGS, PGGS IGS) will increase brainstorming performance.

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS FOR GROUP GOAL-SETTING EFFECTS


What mediating mechanisms contribute to the overall GGS eect? At least two distinct propositions have been developed by previous researchers. Often it is suggested that the mediating processes of GGS eects are identical to those mechanismsincreased eort, high persistence, task focusing, development and use of appropriate task strategiesthat are responsible for goal-setting eects in individual performance situations (see DeShon et al., 2004; Durham et al., 2000; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002). This proposition is 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 eect of group goals. However, the individual goals of group members are sometimes in conict with either (a) the individual goals of other group members, (b) selfset 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 eort) while other group members strive for the group goal (e.g., to work fast and achieve a high group standard). Various types of goal conicts can be found in groups (see Wegge, 2004, for a recent review) and these goal conicts 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 specic group-level mechanisms: (a) group planning (e.g., talking about who should

404

WEGGE AND HASLAM

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) moralebuilding communication (e.g., statements that build a sense of collective ecacy 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 eect is mediated by task-specic 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 be extended if it is applied at the group level. More specically, it is proposed that further empirical eorts to identify possible group-specic mechanisms underlying group goal eects should consider those motivational processes that are usually discussed under the heading of motivation losses and motivation gains in social psychology (Haslam, 2004; Hertel, 2000; Karau & Williams, 1993; Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin, 1996).

GROUP GOAL SETTING AND MOTIVATION LOSSES 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 eort than they do when working individually on the same task. This basic phenomenon is called motivation loss and it takes on several dierent forms. In particular, research has provided evidence of (a) social loang eects (unintentional reduction of work motivation and eort when working collectively; Karau & Williams, 1993), (b) free-riding eects (deliberate reduction of eort if a persons contribution is seen to be unnecessary for the group to succeed; see Kerr & Bruun, 1983), and (c) sucker eects (the deliberate withdrawal of eort 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 identiability of individual performance in teams, thereby counteracting social loang. In addition, group goals and group feedback should prevent the occurrence of sucker eects. This is because having a specic, dicult group goal should make people feel that their own eorts are indispensable even if other team members are free-riding. Matsui et al.s empirical work

GROUP GOAL SETTING

405

provides support for both propositions. Similarly, Erez and Somech (1996) found that group performance loss (measured by the dierence between performance scores of individuals working alone and their scores when working in groups) is less likely to occur when specic, dicult goals (individual or group) are present. Finally, van Leeuwen and van Knippenberg (2002) showed that group goal setting can improve group performance because it aects 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 shifted downwards to 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 links between dierent 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 dierent goal-setting strategies systematically change the expectations and judgements of group members that underlie the occurrence of motivation losses in teams. A sucker eect 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 if no free-riding behaviour is expected. With respect to social loang, ndings from previous research show that this can be 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 loang. The dierentiation between the value placed on success and failure is also introduced here in light of ndings 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 GAINS IN 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

406

WEGGE AND HASLAM

(Stroebe et al., 1996). Nevertheless, an emerging body of research suggests that group contexts provide specic stimuli that can motivate individuals to exert more eort 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 dierent 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 as social 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) found evidence that group members sometimes compensate for the deciencies of other group members on a collective task (e.g., group brainstorming) in order to ensure group success. Thus, contrary to the sucker eect, 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 the groups 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 identication, 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

GROUP GOAL SETTING

407

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 goalsetting techniques (DGGS, PGGS, PGGS IGS) enhance (a) readiness to engage in social compensation, (b) group cohesion, (c) group identication, and (d) intrinsic work motivation in groups. A nal objective of the study is to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of the three dierent group goal-setting strategies. Is it eective to combine group goal setting and individual goal setting in teams (PGGS IGS)? As successful work in groups (e.g., ying a plane) often requires specic group members to do a specic job, adding individual goalsetting procedures related to the subtasks of group members (e.g., ying 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 benecial eect 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 eectivein particular, because studies also dier 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 goal interdependence 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 dierences between participative and directive group goal-setting strategies. Are the processes through which these interventions improve group performance similar or dierent? 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 eective 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, rm conclusions about the impact of dierent strategies at this level are hard to draw. It might be the case, for example, that participation is more important at

408

WEGGE AND HASLAM

the group level because the group context intensies the desire to have a voice in decisions (Haslam, Eggins, & Reynolds, 2003) or because directive supervisor behaviour has less inuence 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 dierent strategies of group goal setting (e.g., DGGS, PGGS) do have the power to prevent motivation losses in teams such as social loang 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 eectiveness 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 ecacy of the three group goal-setting interventions 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 dierent majors (psychology excluded). Participants were recruited by means 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 nancial 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 eectiveness of brainstorming in groups. Group members were rst 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 dierent trials (see below). After Trial 2 was nished, 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). Immediately after this manipulation, and before Trial 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

GROUP GOAL SETTING

409

for further team cooperation was assessed by means of a third questionnaire. 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 nd and write down individually as many dierent uses for common objects (e.g., a pocket lamp) as they could. Group members were informed that brainstorming typically seeks to produce as many dierent 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 experimenter 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 veried 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 the experimenter 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 dicult to compare group performance. As the number of groups was relatively small, the probability of fullling this desirable condition by chance alone is low. Therefore, the experimenter followed the principles of a matched-groups design: Groups were assigned as quadruplets to conditions after performance in the baseline was known. As soon as a match in baseline performance was found, the next available condition was 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 sucient for the purpose of this study.

1 The correlations between quantity and quality of ideas (unique uses) was very high in this study (e.g., r .88, p 5 .01 in Trial 2 and r .85, p 5 .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 quality of 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.

410

WEGGE AND HASLAM

With the help of this procedure it was possible to hold both baseline performance and goal diculty 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 specic group goal through group discussion for Trail 3. For this purpose, each group member rst made an individual suggestion for the group goal. In order to facilitate a GGS eect, the experimenter attempted to inuence the suggestions of group members by emphasizing that the group should agree on a challenging group 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 suggestions were 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 diculty (the mean of these goals is between 34% and 38% in the three conditions with specic group goals, see Table 3 below). In the second participation condition (PGGS IGS, n 6), all group members 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., nding 8 ideas) to support the group goal (e.g., nding 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 these individual 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 dierent.2 However, discussions were not dicult 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

2 Diculty of individual performance goals is correlated both with individual performance in baseline trials (r .74, p 5 .01) and with diculty of the rst individual suggestion for a group goal (r .41, p 5 .05).

GROUP GOAL SETTING

411

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 Questionnaires 13 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 dierent uses in one trial), (b) group performance (the total number of unique uses found in one trial by all group members, always veried 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 systematically across the four experimental conditions (F .06, p 5 .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 specic 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

412

WEGGE AND HASLAM

which group goal we selected to strive for and In comparison to the experimenter, my impact on the diculty 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 dierent antecedents of commitment to goals that have been identied 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 from this 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 identication. 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 reection of who I am). Social compensation. This was assessed by means of three items using 4point scales ranging from low (1) to high (4). A typical statement with which participants stated their agreement was If other group members fail to solve the group task because they do not have enough ability, I will work especially hard to reach the group goal. Value of group success and value 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

As success and failure are dened somehow dierently in DYB groups (e.g., belonging to the best groups is a success) and in groups with specic group goals (e.g., achieving the group goal is a success), corresponding explanations were added in the specic questionnaires used in these conditions.

GROUP GOAL SETTING

413

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 nal 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 performance feedback 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
4

This 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. An alpha 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.

414
Rwg 0.91 0.92 0.88 0.82 0.84 0.89 0.60 0.50 0.82 (.85) .23 .25 .51** .35* .23 .32 .53** .17 (.83) .37* .25 .03 7.04 .15 .11 .23 (.60) .49** .40* .41* .38* .23 .18 (.70) .18 .41* .34 .52** .40* 2.8 2.4 1.3 3.1 3.8 1.6 2.2 1.3 2.9 10.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.2 5.6 (.79) .47* 7.02 .53** .38 .24 .65** .47* .33 .29 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (.74) 7.13 7.18 .14 .05 () .74** .33 .20 () .49** .32 (.74) .31

TABLE 1 Alpha Reliabilities (in parenthesis), Average Within-Group-Variances (V), Average Within-Group Agreement (Rwg), Group Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD) and Correlations of Variables for all Groups

Variable

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

group goal commitment1 group cohesion group identication social compensation intrinsic motivation expect no free-riding value of group success value of group failure further team cooperation performance improvement

0.25 0.32 0.26 0.34 0.57 0.28 1.20 1.01 0.41

Notes: 1n 24 four person groups (otherwise n 30 four person groups); *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01.

GROUP GOAL SETTING

415

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, withingroup 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 justied. A more ne-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 prior researchers 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 justied as there is moderate to very high within-group consistency. 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 dierent scales (e.g., group cohesion and group identication) do indeed measure dierent 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

5 This measure is similar to the typically computed Rwg-index but less dependent on scale features. For a detailed discussion about dierences 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 determine between group 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 within groups is assumed. According to the terms dened 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 variance between groups but only the agreement within the group.

416

WEGGE AND HASLAM

commitment, group cohesion, group identication, and value of group success. These correlations are not signicant in this sample. Nevertheless, they are of similar strength to eects 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 signicant correlation with respect to performance improvement in this study. Performance enhancement is correlated positively with intrinsic task motivation, r .40, p 5 .05. As this variable was measured after task completion, the correlation probably reects not only the eects of motivation on performance but also the eects of group performance on motivation.

Manipulation checks
Table 2 presents data relevant to examination of the eectiveness 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, t 73.46, p 5 .01. There were no dierences between PGGS and PGGS IGS and both values are signicantly higher (p 5 .05) than values from DGGS groups. Thus, in both conditions group members perceived 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 eective in establishing commitment to group goals. Third, baseline performance (ideas in Trial 2) did not dier signicantly 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 eective. Finally, a further potential confound in this study is group goal diculty as a direct comparison between directive and participative goals is only justied if the goal diculty is similar. Furthermore, a GGS eect 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 specic group goals can be considered to have been dicult. On average, groups intended (or were asked by the experimenter when goals were assigned) to improve their performance by more than 30% (DGGS 38%; PGGS 38%; PGGS IGS 34%). This is almost twice as much as the average performance improvement usually observed in goal-setting studies. Thus, group goal diculty was high and comparable across conditions with specic group goals and, therefore, a GGS eect should be observed.

TABLE 2 Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of selected variables and corresponding results from MANOVAs DGGS (n 8) PGGS (n 10) PGGS IGS (n 6) C-A D-P 73.46** C-A (trial 23) 72.12* P1-P2

DYB (n 6) SD 5.5 8.4 6.3 M 2.3 2.9 28.4 38.3 40.0 11.6b SD 0.7 0.2 6.5 8.9 5.0 5.5 M 3.0 2.8 28.3 37.6 40.1 11.8b SD 0.3 0.2 9.8 12.3 12.9 5.6 M 3.1 2.7 26.8 34.2 36.5 9.7b SD 0.3 0.2 2.6 3.9 4.6 3.8

Perceived participation Group goal commitment Ideas in trial 2 Group goals for trial 3 Ideas in trial 3 Performance improvement

M 27.0 32.8 5.8a

Notes: DYB do your best, DGGS directive group goal setting, PGGS participative group goal setting, PGGS IGS PGGS in combination with individual goal setting, C-A Helmert contrast DYB-control vs. all other conditions, D-P Helmert contrast directive vs. participative conditions, P1-P2 Helmert contrast PGGS vs. PGGS IGS; *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, only signicant t-values are presented. a,b indicate homogeneous sub-groupings that dier according to additionally conducted post hoc tests with p 5 .10.

417

418

WEGGE AND HASLAM

Statistical group comparisons


To test mean dierences 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 rst group (DYB) to the remaining groups (C A, this reveals overall GGS eects), (b) the second group (DGGS) to the remaining groups (D P, this reveals dierences due to participation) and (c) the third group (PGGS) to the last group (P1P2, this shows dierences due to adding IGS). It should be noted that this form of contrast does not constitute a post hoc comparison of groups as our corresponding hypotheses require testing exactly these dierences. In addition, results from post hoc tests (Duncan) are reported below to describe other signicant dierences between groups in order to provide a more ne-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 specic, dicult group goals (DGGS, PGGS, and PGGS IGS) improved group performance more than striving for DYB goals. 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 eect more closely. In this analysis, two eects were signicant: the main eect for trial, F(1, 26) 95.14, p 5 .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 dierences across trials), t(26) 72.12, p 5 .05, indicating that all groups with specic group goals showed improved performance relative to DYB control groups. As can be seen from Table 2, there was evidence of a substantial GGS eect as groups with challenging, specic group goals improved performance about twice as much as control groups. To estimate the eect 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

6 Unfortunately, the SPSS (11.0) output for the MANOVA procedure does not report eect sizes for Helmert contrasts (solely t-values are given), so additional computations are necessary to get this information.

GROUP GOAL SETTING

419

variable (representing the corresponding Helmert contrast C A) on performance improvements from Trial 2 to Trial 3 yielded a signicant eect, standardized .39, R2 .15, F(1, 29) 5.1, p 5 .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 eect. Do group goal-setting techniques decrease the probability of a sucker eect by enhancing the expectation that other team members show no free-riding behaviour? This Hypothesis (2a) nds only weak support in the data as the corresponding Helmert contrast (C A) is not signicant. 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, p 5 .05, and the value of group failure, t(26) 72.62, p 5 .02, is indeed much higher in groups with specic group goals than in DYB groups (Hypothesis 2b). As social loang 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, social loang 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 specic, dicult group goals reported a higher readiness to engage in social compensation than DYB groups. However, results from post hoc tests and the signicant Helmert contrast comparing DGGS to the two participative conditions (DP), indicate that this nding was only obtained for DGGS groups. Thus, only directive group goalsetting procedures increased group members readiness to compensate for other weak group members, t(26) 2.71, p 5 .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, p 5 .05. With respect to group cohesion there were no signicant dierences. However, for the group identication measure we found the expected pattern such that groups with specic, challenging group goals identied more with their group than DYB groups, t(26) 72.23, p 5 .04. Finally, the desire for further team activity was generally quite high and did not vary across conditions.

420
DGGS (n 8) C-A PGGS (n 10) PGGS IGS (n 6) D-P P1-P2 72.15* 72.62** 2.71** 72.23* 2.17* SD 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 M 1.7ab 2.5b 1.6b 3.3b 2.4 1.4b 4.1b 3.1 SD 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 M 1.6ab 2.3b 1.5b 3.0a 2.4 1.4b 3.8ab 3.0 SD 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 M 1.8 b 2.1ab 1.2ab 3.1a 2.4 1.3ab 3.7a 2.9 SD 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1

TABLE 3 Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of variables across four group goal conditions and corresponding results from MANOVAs

DYB (n 6)

Expect no free-riding Value of group success Value of group failure Social compensation Group cohesion Group identication Intrinsic motivation Further team cooperation

M 1.5a 1.6a 0.9a 2.9a 2.5 1.1a 3.6a 3.0

Notes: DYB do your best, DGGS directive group goal setting, PGGS participative group goal setting, PGGS IGS PGGS in combination with individual goal setting, C-A Helmert contrast DYB-control vs. all other conditions, D-P Helmert contrast directive vs. participative conditions, P1P2 Helmert contrast PGGS vs. PGGS IGS; *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01; only signicant t-values are presented; a,b indicate homogeneous sub-groupings that dier according to additionally conducted post hoc tests with p 5 .10.

GROUP GOAL SETTING

421

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 signicant eect, standardized .39, R2 .15, F(1, 29) 5.1, p 5 .03. Next, we tested whether this eect could be substantially reduced by incorporating the three potential mediator variables7 in the regression before the dummy variable is entered. This was not the case for value of success, .37, p 5 .06, or group identication, .43, p 5 .03. However, when the value of group failure is entered as a potential mediating variable, the eect was reduced, .31, p 5 .12, R2 .11, reduction in R2 .04. This nding suggests that the value placed on group failure plays an important role in explaining group goal-setting eects on performance in brainstorming groups. That is, teams striving for dicult 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 eect in groups performing group brainstorming tasks. This eect 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 to improve brainstorming performance in groups. As performance improvements 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 eect 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 reect group learning

Following the basic logic of Baron and Kenny (1986), there are three potential mediating variables 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 dierent results.

422

WEGGE AND HASLAM

processes, it can further be concluded that this eect 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 loang and sucker eects and by promoting motivation gains such as social compensation and related phenomena (e.g., group identication). In support of this idea, we found (a) that PGGS IGS increased the expectation that no-one is free-riding in the group (thereby reducing the likelihood of a sucker eect), (b) that GGS increased the value of group success and the value of group failure (thereby counteracting social loang), (c) that GGS increased group identication, and (d) that DGGS, in particular, increased intrinsic task motivation and the readiness of group members to engage in social compensation. The nding that the establishment of group goals has an impact on group identication is quite novel (Wegge & Haslam, 2003). As group identication 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 identication can also promote organizational citizenship 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 eect is not especially strong, group goal setting did increase group identicationsuggesting that this manipulation also has the potential to be useful in situations where achieving high team identication is a meaningful objective in itself. Considering these ndings 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 did not mediate the performance improvements produced by the various group goal-setting strategies. Only one variable (i.e., the value of group failure) emerged as a signicant mediating variable in this respect. Thus, even though some attitudes related to motivation gains and losses in teams varied signicantly as a function of

GROUP GOAL SETTING

423

condition, there may well have been other processes that were responsible for the performance improvements obtained in this study (e.g., investing more cognitive eort, dierences 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 dierences in the ecacy of three dierent group goal-setting strategies. With respect to this issue, the ndings are rather meagre as the dierences between conditions were weak. It was not possible, for example, to show that striving for a combination of participatively set group goals and participatively 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 eect for PGGS IGS because commitment to group goals should be increased. This assumption can also be derived from ndings in the area of volitional psychology which document an increase in goal commitment and goal fullment as a result of having clear, specic implementation intentions (e.g., Brandstatter, Leng felder, & Gollwitzer, 2001). Why was there no comparable eect 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 there was 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 eectiveness 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 ndings from Crown and Rosse (1995), the data from the present study also indicate that a combination of both goals might establish a group-supportive performance orientation as expectations that other group members will not free ride were only increased in this condition. Hence, this group goal-setting strategy could prove to be most appropriate in situations where sucker eects 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 eects of dierent 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

424

WEGGE AND HASLAM

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 benet 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 rst 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 interventions are enacted, having constant goal diculty across conditions) were achieved. Nevertheless, further replications with a larger number of groups would of course be desirable. Caution in generalizing these ndings 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 ne-grained analysis of dierent 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 the realm of goal-setting research there is ample evidence that ndings from the laboratory generalize to more realistic conditions (Locke, 1986; Locke & Latham, 2002). Primarily, this is because this generalization is based on sound theory that 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 eld settings certainly seem warranted. Moreover, we should be also aware of the fact that potentially inuential factors were not measured (e.g., perceptions regarding indispensability of

GROUP GOAL SETTING

425

own eorts, 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-specic (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 eective 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 the quantity of ideas (checking and correcting for very similar ideas), not their quality. Because prior research has found that there is often a strong association between the number of ideas and the exibility 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 exibility 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 goalsetting eects in brainstorming groups. Two further limitations of this study are linked to the procedures we used for group brainstorming. First, the available time for nding ideas was rather short (3 minutes). In brainstorming tasks, ideas are generated with low eort and diculty 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 eective over longer time periods (e.g., 15 minutes). That said, it was notable that group goal setting signicantly improved performance even under the restricted time conditions selected in this studyso in many ways this was a stringent test of our arguments. Second, social loang eects occur mainly in situations where group members contributions are not identiable and where performance feedback 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 identiable and evaluated by other group members and the experimenter. Thus, social loang would not necessarily be expected to have occurred in this context and, accordingly, it would be interesting to investigate whether group goalsetting eects are stronger in conditions where social loang is more likely (e.g., when ideas generation is anonymous; see Erez & Somech, 1996).

426

WEGGE AND HASLAM

Again, though, when we consider that social loang 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 eect 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, eective 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 group development (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 eective 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. Brandstatter, V., Lengfelder, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Implementation intentions and ecient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 946 960. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group eectiveness research from the shop oor to the executive site. Journal of Management, 23, 239 290. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coecient alpha: An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98 104. 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 eects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035 1056.

GROUP GOAL SETTING

427

Durham, C. C., Locke, E. A., Poon, J. M. L., & McLeod, P. L. (2000). Eects of group goals and time pressure on group ecacy, 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 Management 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? Eects 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, aect, and behavior in groups revisited: Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis and a recent application of within and between analysis. 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 Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 83 113. 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, 1 28. 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, 965 990. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85 98. 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 loang: Eects of a social interaction manipulation on individual motivation within groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 185 191.

428

WEGGE AND HASLAM

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loang: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681 706. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The eects of group cohesiveness on social loang 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 eort and group motivation losses: Free-rider eects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78 94. Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 22.1 22.32. Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal setting process: Conceptual clarication and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 885 896. Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The eects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254 284. Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for stang, motivation, and development (pp. 240 292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving scientic disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 73, 753 772. Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to eld settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. The American Psychologist, 57, 705 717. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of ones social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302 318. Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. L. U. (1987). Eects of goals and feedback on performance in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 407 415. Mento, A. J., Locke, E. A., & Klein, H. J. (1992). Relationship of goal level to valence and instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 395 405. Mitchell, T. R., & Silver, W. S. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: Eects on task strategies and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 185 193. OLeary-Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of the inuence of group goals on group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1285 1301. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner. Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The eects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 633 646. Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 237 262. Paulus, P. B., Dugosh, K. L., Dzindolet, M. T., Coskun, H., & Putman, V. L. (2002). Social and cognitive inuences in group brainstorming: Predicting production gains and losses. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 299 325.

GROUP GOAL SETTING

429

Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76 87. Peterson, R. S. (1999). Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 313 324. Pinsonneault, A., Barki, H., Gallupe, K. B., & Hoppen, N. (1999). Electronic brainstorming: The illusion of productivity. Information System Research, 10, 110 133. Sagie, A. (1996). Eects of leaders communication style and participative goal setting on performance and attitudes. Human Performance, 9, 51 64. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1989). Interrater reliability coecients cannot be computed when only one stimulus is rated. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 368 370. Schmidt, K.-H., & Kleinbeck, U. (1997). Relationships between group-based performance measures, feedback, and organizational context factors. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6, 303 319. Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation and the Kohler eect: Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. In E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 37 65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 96 111. Tjosvold, D. (1998). Conict over the study of conict: The challenge to make it cooperative. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 336 342. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2000). Co-operation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Ulich, E., & Weber, W. G. (1996). Dimensions, criteria and evaluation of work group autonomy. In M. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 247 282). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Social identity and group performance: Identication as the key to group-oriented eort. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 29 42). New York: Taylor & Francis. Van Leeuwen, E., & van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How a group goal can reduce matching in group performance: Shifts in standards for determining a fair contribution of eort. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 73 86. Van Vijfeijken, H., Kleingeld, A., van Tuijl, H., Algera, J. A., & Thierry, H. (2002). Task complexity and task, goal, and reward interdependence in group performance management: A prescriptive model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 363 383. Wagner, J. A. (1994). Participation eects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19, 312 330. Wegge, J. (2000). Participation in group goal setting: Some novel ndings and a comprehensive model as a new ending to an old story. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 498 516. Wegge, J. (2001). Motivation, information processing and performance: Eects of goal setting on basic cognitive processes. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 269 296). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Wegge, J. (2004). Fu hrung von Arbeitsgruppen [Leadership of groups] Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Wegge, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2003). Group goal setting, social identity, and self-categorization: Engaging the collective self to enhance group performance and organizational outcomes. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 43 60). New York: Taylor & Francis.

430

WEGGE AND HASLAM

Wegge, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). When group goal setting fails: The impact of task complexity and unfair supervisors. Manuscript submitted for publication. Wegge, J., & Kleinbeck, U. (1996). Goal-setting and group performance: Impact of achievement and aliation motives, participation in goal-setting, and task interdependence of group members. In T. Gjesme & R. Nygard (Eds.), Advances in Motivation (pp. 145 177). Oslo, Sweden: Scandinavian University Press. Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, eort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 682 693. Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 555 569. Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 307 334. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355 424. West, M. A., Borrill, C., & Unsworth, K. L. (1998). Team eectiveness in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 1 48). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Widmeyer, W. N., & Ducharme, K. (1997). Team building through team goal setting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 97 113. Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loang and social compensation: The eects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570 581. Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E. A., Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social identity and individual productivity within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 389 413. Manuscript received November 2004 Revised manuscript received September 2005

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi