The mediating effect of psychological empowerment on the relationship between participative goal setting and team outcomes – a study in China

In the late twentieth century, it is popular to research the effect of participative goal setting. The general conclusion is that the relationship between participation and performance is inconsistent and unclear at individual level. With team becoming a more dominant mode in organizing, motivating, and managing, it is worthwhile to investigate the effect of participation in team goal setting. This study aims to test the mediating effect of psychological empowerment (PE) on the relationship between participative team goal setting and team identity and team performance. Executive MBA students (371) in 75 groups from China Europe International Business School in China participated in the study. The data from Business Strategy Game and questionnaire found positive relationship between participative team goal setting and team identification, and team performance is partially mediated by PE. Implications for the goal-setting theory and practice are discussed, and future research directions offered.

[1]  E. A. Locke.  Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives , 1968 .

[2]  Marilyn E. Gist,et al.  Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability , 1992 .

[3]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. , 1991 .

[4]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  The Impact of Team Members’ Cultural Values on Productivity, Cooperation, and Empowerment in Self-Managing Work Teams , 2001 .

[5]  Albert Bandura,et al.  Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal standards and goal systems. , 1989 .

[6]  Mushin Lee,et al.  Is Empowerment Really A New Concept , 2001 .

[7]  Donald J. Campbell,et al.  The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: A field experiment , 1986 .

[8]  Stephen W. Nason,et al.  A Dimensional Analysis of the Relationship between Psychological Empowerment and Effectiveness Satisfaction, and Strain , 1997 .

[9]  John B. Miner,et al.  The Validity and Usefulness of Theories in an Emerging Organizational Science , 1984 .

[10]  M Erez,et al.  The role of goal acceptance in goal setting and task performance. , 1983, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[11]  Daniele Ricard.  Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work; A Force of Ones: Reclaiming Individual Power in a Time of Teams, Work Groups, and Other Crowds , 1996 .

[12]  Kenneth S. Law,et al.  CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, EFFICACY, AND PERFORMANCE IN ORGANIZATIONAL TEAMS , 2000 .

[13]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  The Impact of Participation on Goal Acceptance and Performance: A Two-Step Model , 1985 .

[14]  P. Earley,et al.  Comparative peer evaluations of organizational behavior theories. , 1992 .

[15]  Carmen Barroso Castro,et al.  Transformational leadership and followers' attitudes: the mediating role of psychological empowerment , 2008 .

[16]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment , 1999 .

[17]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Empowered Selling Teams: How Shared Leadership Can Contribute to Selling Team Outcomes , 2013 .

[18]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review , 1986 .

[19]  G. Seijts.  GOAL SETTING AND GOAL ORIENTATION : AN INTEGRATION OF TWO DIFFERENT YET RELATED LITERATURES , 2004 .

[20]  Steve W. J. Kozlowski,et al.  AN EXPLORATION OF CLIMATES FOR TECHNICAL UPDATING AND PERFORMANCE , 1987 .

[21]  Robert J. Vandenberg,et al.  The Critical Psychological States: An Underrepresented Component in Job Characteristics Model Research , 1995 .

[22]  J. Bishop,et al.  An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[23]  T. Wall,et al.  Empowerment, Performance, and Operational Uncertainty: A Theoretical Integration , 2002 .

[24]  Paul E. Spector.  Perceived Control by Employees: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Concerning Autonomy and Participation at Work , 1986 .

[25]  L. V. Dyne,et al.  Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct Redefinition, Measurement, and Validation , 1994 .

[26]  Raymond T. Sparrowe,et al.  An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[27]  R. Eisenberger,et al.  Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation , 1990 .

[28]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  From Micro to Meso: Critical Steps in Conceptualizing and Conducting Multilevel Research , 2000 .

[29]  Raymond T. Sparrowe,et al.  Empowerment in the Hospitality Industry: an Exploration of Antecedents and Outcomes , 1994 .

[30]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works! , 1984 .

[31]  Miriam Erez,et al.  The Congruence of Goal-Setting Strategies With Socio-Cultural Values and its Effect on Performance , 1986 .

[32]  Roy A. Cook,et al.  Coming of Age with Self-Managed Teams: Dealing with a Problem Employee , 2002 .

[33]  Linda K. Stroh,et al.  Organizational behavior. , 1970, Physical therapy.

[34]  Manuel London,et al.  Performance management and assessment: Methods for improved rater accuracy and employee goal setting , 2004 .

[35]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. , 2002, The American psychologist.

[36]  Richard,et al.  Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. , 1976 .

[37]  S. Seibert.  TAKING EMPOWERMENT TO THE NEXT LEVEL : A MULTIPLE-LEVEL MODEL OF EMPOWERMENT , PERFORMANCE , AND SATISFACTION , 2004 .

[38]  D. Katz,et al.  The motivational basis of organizational behavior. , 1964, Behavioral science.

[39]  G. Latham.  The Reciprocal Effects of Science on Practice: Insights from the Practice and Science of Goal Setting , 2001 .

[40]  K. Thomas,et al.  Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation , 1990 .

[41]  C. Gibson.  Me and us: differential relationships among goal‐setting training, efficacy and effectiveness at the individual and team level , 2001 .

[42]  P. Bliese.  Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. , 2000 .

[43]  Henry L. Tosi.  A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance , 1991 .

[44]  P. Osterman.  How Common is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts it? , 1994 .

[45]  Miriam Erez,et al.  Participative goal-setting: Social, motivational, and cognitive factors. , 1986 .

[46]  Gilad Chen,et al.  The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: evidence for discontinuity. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[47]  P. Lorenzi,et al.  The Effects of Participative Versus Assigned Goal Setting on Intrinsic Motivation , 1983 .

[48]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  Importance of supportive relationships in goal setting. , 1979 .

[49]  Robert C. Liden,et al.  A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. , 1993 .

[50]  Linda L. Neider,et al.  An experimental field investigation utilizing an expectancy theory view of participation , 1980 .

[51]  Gerard H. Seijts,et al.  The effects of goal setting and group size on performance in a social dilemma. , 2000 .

[52]  G. Latham,et al.  The Motivational Effects of Participation Versus Goal Setting on Performance , 1983 .

[53]  Jay A. Conger,et al.  Leadership: The Art of Empowering Others , 1989 .

[54]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF SELF‐SET, PARTICIPATIVELY SET AND ASSIGNED GOALS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES , 1982 .

[55]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  The Impact of Team Empowerment on Virtual Team Performance: The Moderating Role of Face-to-Face Interaction , 2004 .

[56]  K. Law,et al.  High-Performance Human Resource Practices, Citizenship Behavior, and Organizational Performance: A Relational Perspective , 2007 .

[57]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  The High Performance Cycle: Standing the Test of Time , 2005 .

[58]  G. V. D. Vegt,et al.  Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification , 2005 .

[59]  Abraham Sagie,et al.  Effects of Leader's Communication Style and Participative Goal Setting on Performance and Attitudes , 1996 .

[60]  Miriam Erez,et al.  Effect of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal difficulty to performance , 1984 .

[61]  J. Mathieu,et al.  Empowerment and team effectiveness: an empirical test of an integrated model. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[62]  John B. Miner,et al.  The Rated Importance, Scientific Validity, and Practical Usefulness of Organizational Behavior Theories: A Quantitative Review , 2003 .

[63]  Samuel Aryee,et al.  Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: Antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes , 2006 .

[64]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION AND GOAL DIFFICULTY ON PERFORMANCE , 1982 .

[65]  Robert P. Steel,et al.  A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966-1984 , 1987 .

[66]  L. James.  Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement. , 1982 .

[67]  E. A. Locke.  Goal-setting theory and its applications to the world of business. , 2004 .

[68]  Kan Shi,et al.  The impact of participative leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: the moderating role of organizational tenure , 2006 .

[69]  G. Spreitzer.  PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: DIMENSIONS, MEASUREMENT, AND VALIDATION , 1995 .

[70]  Paul R. Jackson,et al.  The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology , 2003 .

[71]  R. N. Kanungo,et al.  The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice , 1988 .

[72]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. , 1992 .

[73]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Participation in decision making: An information exchange perspective. , 1997 .

[74]  G. Spreitzer.  Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment , 1996 .

[75]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[76]  J. L. Pierce,et al.  EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF PROCESS AND EFFECTS , 1991 .

[77]  Daniel J. Koys.  The Effects of Employee Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Turnover on Organizational Effectiveness , 2001 .

[78]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. , 2002 .

[79]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions , 2000 .

[80]  Sanjay T. Menon,et al.  Employee Empowerment: An Integrative Psychological Approach , 2001 .

[81]  Peter K. Mills,et al.  Reassessing the Limits of Structural Empowerment: Organizational Constitution and Trust as Controls , 2003 .

[82]  G. Spreitzer,et al.  The road to empowerment: Seven questions every leader should consider , 1997 .

[83]  H. Kelley.  The processes of causal attribution. , 1973 .

[84]  C. Pinder,et al.  Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior , 1997 .

[85]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez–Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. , 1988 .