improving work motivation and performance in brainstorming groups- the eﬀects of three group ...

Improving work motivation and performance inbrainstorming groups: The e!ects of three group

goal-setting strategies

Jurgen WeggeUniversity of Munich (LMU), Germany

S. Alexander HaslamSchool of Psychology, Exeter, UK

An experiment was conducted with 30 groups (n! 120) solving brainstormingtasks under four di!erent group goal conditions: do your best (DYB), directivegroup goal setting (DGGS), participative group goal setting (PGGS), andPGGS in combination with individual goal setting (PGGS" IGS). Asexpected, all groups with specific and di"cult group goals performed betterthan DYB control groups. It is hypothesized that these positive e!ects ofgroup goal setting on brainstorming performance arise because group goalsetting counteracts motivation losses such as social loafing. In addition,group goal setting should promote motivation gains arising from socialcompensation and related cognitive processes, in particular high identificationwith the group. Consistent with this hypothesis, it was found that group goalsetting increased team identification, the readiness to compensate for otherweak group members, the value of group success, and the value of groupfailure. Mediation analysis also indicated that concern to avoid group failurewas partly responsible for performance improvements. Finally, no largedi!erences were found between PGGS" IGS and PGGS or DGGS. On thisbasis group goal setting can be considered a robust strategy for improvingwork motivation and brainstorming performance in groups.

During the last few decades working in groups has become increasinglypopular in organizations. This is consistent not only with common beliefs

Correspondence should be addressed to Jurgen Wegge, Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitatMunchen (LMU), Department of Psychology, Psychology of Excellence, Martiusstrasse 4,D-80802 Munchen, Germany. Email: [email protected]

This research was supported by a grant from the University of Dortmund (Kennzahl 81 1431). The authors would like to thank Ed Locke, Daan van Knippenberg, Michael West, andthree anonymous reviewers for detailed comments on an earlier version of this article.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

2005, 14 (4), 400–430

! 2005 Psychology Press Ltd

http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320500349961

about the ‘‘synergy’’ that can emerge when people work in teams but alsowith insights from organizational and social psychology. Compared tomore traditional forms of work design, collaboration in teams has beenfound to enhance communication, innovation, and the quality of decisionmaking (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Haslam, 2004; Kerr & Tindale, 2004; West,2002; West, Borrill, & Unsworth, 1998). Moreover, working in teams orgroups (terms that we use here as synonyms) satisfies motivations forcollective self-actualization and meaningful work (Ellemers, de Gilder, &Haslam, 2004). However, it is also widely recognized that teamwork is oftenplagued with specific motivation and coordination problems. With respect togroup brainstorming—a method of collective idea generation in groupspopularized by Osborn (1957)—it is consistently found, for example, thatthe inability for more than one group member to talk at a time (productionblocking) is a powerful process that can hamper team performance.In addition, social loafing can occur when group members are notindividually identifiable or accountable for their performance (Karau &Williams, 1993). Evaluation apprehension—whereby group members areconcerned about the other group members’ appraisal of their ideas—is alsoanother prominent motivation loss that can contribute to poor performanceon 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 o!er severalrecommendations for improving traditional group brainstorming. Forexample, prior research has documented the e"cacy of using a facilitatorwho is trained to minimize production blocking and evaluation apprehen-sion (Oxley, Dzindolet, & Paulus, 1996). Other promising interventionsinvolve 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 thisliterature by analysing the e"ciency of setting a specific and challenginggroup goal (e.g., trying to find 35 new ideas for solving a problem as a groupin 5 minutes). More specifically, the study examines the e!ects of threegroup goal-setting strategies: (a) directive group goal setting by an authorityin a friendly and convincing ‘‘tell and sell’’ manner where a rationale for achallenging group goal is given (DGGS), (b) participative group goalsetting by an authority realized within a fair group discussion about theappropriate group goal (PGGS), and (c) PGGS in combination withindividual goal setting (PGGS" IGS). All three strategies are based ongoal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990, see below), and it isexpected that these techniques will motivate brainstorming groupsto work better than groups that are instructed simply to do their best(DYB-control).

GROUP GOAL SETTING 401

Almost no prior research has examined if and how di!erent group goal-setting interventions enhance performance in brainstorming groups (but forpreliminary positive tests see Wegge & Haslam, 2003; Wegge & Kleinbeck,1996). Garnering empirical evidence on this issue is therefore important forpractical reasons. Accordingly, the first aim of this study is to assess whethergroup goal setting should be added to the list of interventions that have thepotential to increase performance in brainstorming groups. From a moretheoretical perspective, the study also seeks to investigate the motivationalunderpinnings of the expected performance improvements induced by groupgoal setting. It will be argued that the positive e!ects of group goal settingon brainstorming performance arise because group goal setting counteractsthe occurrence of motivation losses in teams such as social loafing. Inaddition, this procedure should promote motivation gains such as socialcompensation (e.g., a deliberate decision to compensate for the weaknessesof other team members) and related cognitive and emotional processesresulting from high identification with the group. These putative linksbetween di!erent group goal-setting manipulations and motivation gains ormotivation losses in teams have rarely been analysed in previous research(Ellemers et al., 2004; Hertel, 2000). Thus, the second aim of the study is toexamine whether there is a fruitful link to be made between goal-settingtheory and social psychological research into motivational processes inteams.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

There are literally hundreds of studies that demonstrate a reliable impact ofgoals on behaviour (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002). Based on this evidence, itis widely acknowledged that goals (intentions) are an immediate andpowerful regulator of human action. Goal-setting research has alsoexamined which aspects of goals are most important for predictingdi!erences in task performance. The current evidence on this question isconclusive. It has consistently been found that specific and di!cultperformance goals lead to better performance than easy goals or unspecificgoal instructions—typified by invitations to ‘‘Do your best’’.

The e!ects of goal setting, however, have typically been analysed inrelation to individual performance (Wagner, 1994). As a consequence, farfewer studies have examined the impact of group goals (an intention sharedby a group) on group performance. Nevertheless, there are several recentstudies indicating that group goal setting improves team performance(DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiechmann, 2004; Durham,Locke, Poon, & McLeod, 2000; Wegge, 2000; Wegge & Haslam, 2003) eventhough some failures have also been reported (e.g., see Sagie, 1996; Wegge &Haslam, 2004). In a meta-analysis covering 26 e!ect sizes derived from

402 WEGGE AND HASLAM

10 studies conducted between 1978 and 1991 and comprising data from 163groups and 1684 individuals, O’Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, and Frink (1994)found that performance of groups striving for a specific di"cult group goalis almost one standard deviation higher (d! .92) than the performance ofgroups that do not have clear goals (DYB-instructions). This e!ect isreferred to here as the GGS-e!ect and building on this work we propose thatit will also be observed in brainstorming groups:

Hypothesis 1: Compared to control instructions (DYB), group goal-setting techniques (DGGS, PGGS, PGGS" IGS) will increase brain-storming performance.

CURRENT EXPLANATIONS FOR GROUPGOAL-SETTING EFFECTS

What mediating mechanisms contribute to the overall GGS e!ect? At leasttwo distinct propositions have been developed by previous researchers.Often it is suggested that the mediating processes of GGS e!ects are identicalto those mechanisms—increased e!ort, high persistence, task focusing,development and use of appropriate task strategies—that are responsible forgoal-setting e!ects in individual performance situations (see DeShon et al.,2004; Durham et al., 2000; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002). This propositionis plausible since individual performance is usually the basis for teamperformance. Moreover, team members sometimes set individual goals inaccordance with group goals (Widmeyer & Ducharme, 1997) so thatindividual goals and corresponding mechanisms might mediate the e!ect ofgroup goals.

However, the individual goals of group members are sometimes inconflict with either (a) the individual goals of other group members, (b) self-set group goals, or (c) group goals suggested by group leaders (Crown &Rosse, 1995; Haslam, 2004; Hinsz, 1995; Mitchell & Silver, 1990; Peterson,1999; Tjosvold, 1998). In the same situation, for example, some groupmembers might be guided by their individual goals (e.g., to work slowly andreduce one’s e!ort) while other group members strive for the group goal(e.g., to work fast and achieve a high group standard). Various types of goalconflicts can be found in groups (see Wegge, 2004, for a recent review) andthese goal conflicts serve to complicate predictions regarding the impact ofgoal-setting manipulations by an (external) authority.

In the same vein, it is recognized that group work typically requiresadditional processes such as communication and planning within the wholeteam that are not necessarily required in individual performance situations.Weldon and Weingart (1993) developed a model describing three specificgroup-level mechanisms: (a) group planning (e.g., talking about who should


do what, when, and where in the team), (b) cooperation (e.g., listening to theideas of others, helping team mates performing their work), and (c) morale-building communication (e.g., statements that build a sense of collectivee"cacy or that stimulate supportive emotions). In this model, it is assumedthat high values of these three processes increase the quality of group plansand the expectancy of success—elements that should serve to facilitate teamperformance. To date, there is some evidence showing that the GGS e!ect ismediated by task-specific group planning (e.g., Durham et al., 2000;Weingart, 1992; Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan, 1991). However, empiricalevidence for the two other group mechanisms is weak. Consistent with theassumption of Weldon and Weingart (1993), in the present study it is arguedthat goal-setting theory has to be extended if it is applied at the group level.More specifically, it is proposed that further empirical e!orts to identifypossible group-specific mechanisms underlying group goal e!ects shouldconsider those motivational processes that are usually discussed under theheading of ‘‘motivation losses’’ and ‘‘motivation gains’’ in social psychology(Haslam, 2004; Hertel, 2000; Karau & Williams, 1993; Stroebe, Diehl, &Abakoumkin, 1996).

GROUP GOAL SETTING AND MOTIVATIONLOSSES IN GROUPS

The basic phenomenon of motivation losses in groups is well documented insocial psychology (Karau & Williams, 1993). When individuals work in agroup they sometimes exert less e!ort than they do when workingindividually on the same task. This basic phenomenon is called ‘‘motivationloss’’ and it takes on several di!erent forms. In particular, research hasprovided evidence of (a) social loafing e!ects (unintentional reduction ofwork motivation and e!ort when working collectively; Karau & Williams,1993), (b) free-riding e!ects (deliberate reduction of e!ort if a person’scontribution is seen to be unnecessary for the group to succeed; see Kerr &Bruun, 1983), and (c) sucker e!ects (the deliberate withdrawal of e!ort thatoccurs 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 examinedpossible links between motivation losses and group goal setting. Matsui,Kakuyama, and Onglatco (1987) argued that providing both individual andgroup goals and corresponding performance feedback increases theidentifiability of individual performance in teams, thereby counteractingsocial loafing. In addition, group goals and group feedback should preventthe occurrence of sucker e!ects. This is because having a specific, di"cultgroup goal should make people feel that their own e!orts are indispensableeven if other team members are free-riding. Matsui et al.’s empirical work


provides support for both propositions. Similarly, Erez and Somech (1996)found that group performance loss (measured by the di!erence betweenperformance scores of individuals working alone and their scores whenworking in groups) is less likely to occur when specific, di"cult goals(individual or group) are present. Finally, van Leeuwen and vanKnippenberg (2002) showed that group goal setting can improve groupperformance because it a!ects social matching processes that might also leadto motivation losses in groups (e.g., where individual standards regardingone’s own contribution to the group product are shifted downwards to matchlow performance or the standards of weaker group members; see also Pauluset al., 2002).

Even though these ideas and results are intuitively plausible, it isimportant to note that there is no empirical evidence corroborating linksbetween di"erent 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 di!erent goal-setting strategies system-atically change the expectations and judgements of group members thatunderlie the occurrence of motivation losses in teams. A sucker e!ect arisesif group members realize or expect that other members of their team areengaging in free-riding behaviour (Kerr & Bruun, 1983) and, therefore, thisphenomenon should not occur if no free-riding behaviour is expected. Withrespect to social loafing, findings from previous research show that this canbe encouraged by lack of concern for group success or group failure (Hertel,Konradt, & Orlikowski, 2004; Karau &Williams, 1993). Thus, placing valueon group success or on the prevention of group failure should counteract thephenomenon of social loafing. The di!erentiation between the value placedon success and failure is also introduced here in light of findings reported byHiggins (1997), which show that the same behaviour might be motivated bya promotion focus in self-regulation (i.e., to achieve positive states) or by aprevention focus (to avoid negative states). Taken together, the followinghypothesis can thus be derived:

Hypothesis 2: Compared to control instructions (DYB), group goal-settingtechniques (DGGS, PGGS, PGGS" IGS) enhance (a) the expectation thatother team members will not free-ride and (b) the subjective importanceof team success and team failure.

GROUP GOAL SETTING AND MOTIVATION GAINSIN GROUPS

With the exception of social facilitation induced by the mere presence of(coacting) others (Bond & Titus, 1983), the possibility that groups cancontribute to motivation gains has, until recently, been largely overlooked


(Stroebe et al., 1996). Nevertheless, an emerging body of research suggeststhat group contexts provide specific stimuli that can motivate individuals toexert more e!ort in groups than they do when working on the same taskindividually. This basic phenomenon is called ‘‘motivation gain’’. Whereasthe existence of such phenomena is now becoming widely accepted, there isstill debate about how many di!erent motivation gains can and should bedistinguished (for recent reviews see Haslam, 2004; Hertel, 2000; Wegge,2004).

In the present study, we focus on a motivation gain referred to as socialcompensation. Williams and Karau (1991, p. 571) proposed that under someconditions people may work harder in a collective setting than in a coactivesetting in order to compensate for others in their group. In support of thisidea, Karau and Williams (1997) and Williams and Karau (1991) foundevidence that group members sometimes compensate for the deficiencies ofother group members on a collective task (e.g., group brainstorming) inorder to ensure group success. Thus, contrary to the sucker e!ect, workmotivation is enhanced when a group member realizes or anticipates thatother group members are performing poorly (e.g., because of low workmotivation or low ability). Based on previous research, individuals’readiness to socially compensate for other group member should beincreased if the group task is perceived as meaningful (e.g., the task itselfis interesting and valuable) and if the person is concerned about how thegroup’s performance is evaluated (e.g., by other co-workers or by asupervisor or other external agencies). Moreover, Williams and Karau(1991, p. 580) suggest that social compensation should also be morepronounced if the group is relatively small, when it appears that theindividual must continue to remain in the group, and at earlier stages ofthe collective process. In addition, social compensation in teams should bemore likely if group cohesion is high (Karau & Hart, 1998) and if groupmembers identify with other members of the group so that the group isperceived as a salient part of one’s own social identity (Haslam, 2004;Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003).

To our knowledge, there is almost no research that has examined possiblelinks between group goal setting and social compensation or other relatedprocesses (e.g., social identification, task interest) that may contribute to thisrelationship. Indeed, aside from a few studies showing that PGGS canenhance group cohesion (Wegge & Kleinbeck, 1996; Widmeyer &Ducharme, 1997), we have no indication that GGS has an impact on thesevariables. However, having a clear performance goal and correspondingfeedback often makes tasks more valuable and intrinsically motivating(Fried & Ferris, 1987; Mento, Locke, & Klein, 1992). Moreover, at the levelof individual performance and individual goal setting there is some evidenceshowing that self-set goals increase intrinsic motivation, especially when


these goals are challenging (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot,2000; Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988). In addition, thinking or talking as agroup about a common group goal inherently promotes a team focus(Haslam et al., in press; Wegge & Haslam, 2003). Hence, it would beexpected that group goal setting has the power to promote the emergence ofsocial compensation along with feelings and judgements that bolster thisphenomenon. This leads to:

Hypothesis 3: Compared to control instructions (DYB), group goal-setting techniques (DGGS, PGGS, PGGS" IGS) enhance (a) readinessto engage in social compensation, (b) group cohesion, (c) groupidentification, and (d) intrinsic work motivation in groups.

A final objective of the study is to assess the relative strengths andweaknesses of the three di!erent group goal-setting strategies. Is it e!ectiveto combine group goal setting and individual goal setting in teams(PGGS" IGS)? As successful work in groups (e.g., flying a plane) oftenrequires specific group members to do a specific job, adding individual goal-setting procedures related to the subtasks of group members (e.g., flyingsafely, being polite to passengers) seems a logical supplement to generalgroup goal setting (e.g., to produce high customer satisfaction). However, todate, this type of goal-setting strategy has received little empirical attention(Crown & Rosse, 1995; Matsui et al., 1987; Mitchell & Silver, 1990) andresults are mixed (e.g., Mitchell and Silver, 1990, found no beneficial e!ectof 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 bee!ective—in particular, because studies also di!er with respect to the tasksemployed. Matsui et al., for example, used an additive task with low taskinterdependence, whereas Mitchell and Silver employed a task in whichtask interdependence was very high and competition (due to negative goalinterdependence introduced by an individual goal) was detrimental togroup performance. Accordingly, the present study seeks to collect moreevidence pertaining to this issue. In the same vein, the study explorespotential di!erences between participative and directive group goal-settingstrategies. Are the processes through which these interventions improvegroup performance similar or di!erent? We know from previous work (e.g.,Erez, 1995; Latham et al., 1988) that assigning goals in a directive ‘‘tell andsell’’ style can be as e!ective as participative goal setting. However, very fewsimilar comparisons have been made at the group level (but see Kerr &Tindale, 2004, pp. 22.7–22.8; Wegge, 2000) and, as a result, firm conclusionsabout the impact of di!erent strategies at this level are hard to draw. Itmight be the case, for example, that participation is more important at


the group level because the group context intensifies the desire to have avoice in decisions (Haslam, Eggins, & Reynolds, 2003) or because directivesupervisor behaviour has less influence in front of a group, in particularwhen the going gets tough (Wegge & Haslam, 2003, 2004).

In sum, to our knowledge, previous research has not examined whetherdi!erent strategies of group goal setting (e.g., DGGS, PGGS) do have thepower to prevent motivation losses in teams such as social loafing and/orwhether they promote the occurrence of motivation gains in teams such associal compensation. Moreover, it is unclear if the most common groupgoal-setting strategies have similar impact with respect to their e!ectivenessin improving work motivation and performance in teams. Given the lack ofprevious work on these issues, the present study is largely exploratory withrespect to the comparative e"cacy of the three group goal-settinginterventions whose impact it investigated.

METHOD

Participants

The sample consisted of 60 male and 60 female students (mean age! 24.46years, range! 19 to 37 years, SD! 1.48) from a large German Universitywith di!erent majors (psychology excluded). Participants were recruited bymeans of advertisements on notice boards in the university. They workedtogether in 30 four-person (2 male, 2 female) groups. Each person received7.50 Euros for participating in the study. No further financial incentives(e.g., for goal attainment) were provided.

General procedure

On arrival, participants were informed that the purpose of the study was toanalyse the e!ectiveness of brainstorming in groups. Group members werefirst requested to answer a personality questionnaire. This questionnaireasked participants to provide biographic and demographic details (e.g., age,sex). Next, students had to work together on a brainstorming task. Allgroups were asked to solve three di!erent trials (see below). After Trial 2was finished, the experimenter determined in which condition the group wasplaced. The experimenter was a trained student assistant who was blind tothe hypotheses that were tested in this study. After this, he enacted thecorresponding group goal manipulation (e.g., PGGS or DGGS). Immedi-ately after this manipulation, and before Trial 3 of the brainstorming task, asecond questionnaire was distributed that assessed several key variables(e.g., perceived participation, group goal commitment; see the measuresection below). After completion of Trial 3, intrinsic motivation and desire


for further team cooperation was assessed by means of a third ques-tionnaire. Finally, participants were paid, debriefed, and asked not todiscuss the experiment with others.

Task and experimental design

All groups were asked to solve three trials of a brainstorming task. Each triallasted 3 minutes and presented a new problem. As a group, participants hadto find and write down individually as many di!erent uses for commonobjects (e.g., a pocket lamp) as they could. Group members were informedthat brainstorming typically seeks to produce as many di!erent solutionsto a problem as possible and that, therefore, the number of unique usesgenerated is the appropriate measure of team performance. After each trial,all group members were asked to read their ideas out aloud. The experi-menter counted the number of unique uses (e.g., so that ‘‘lighting a darkroom’’ and ‘‘lighting a cellar’’ were counted as one idea) generated by allgroup members and always verified his judgement with the group in a shortdiscussion.1

Trial 1 was a practice trial. In Trial 2 of the brainstorming task, all groupswere instructed to ‘‘do their best’’ (DYB) to establish a baseline for groupperformance. In Trial 3, goal instructions varied according to the selectedgroup goal-setting strategy (see below). It should be noted that theexperimenter considered several points when deciding before Trial 3 inwhich condition a group should be placed. First, it was important to havesimilar performance values across the four conditions in Trial 2 becauseotherwise it would be di"cult to compare group performance. As the numberof groups was relatively small, the probability of fulfilling this desirablecondition by chance alone is low. Therefore, the experimenter followed theprinciples of a matched-groups design: Groups were assigned as ‘‘quad-ruplets’’ to conditions after performance in the baseline was known. As soonas a match in baseline performance was found, the next available conditionwas selected randomly. Of course, to determine which group goals can beassigned 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 thatsix control groups would be su"cient for the purpose of this study.

1The correlations between quantity and quality of ideas (unique uses) was very high in thisstudy (e.g., r! .88, p5 .01 in Trial 2 and r! .85, p5 .01 in Trial 3) so that only the number ofunique ideas is considered below as an indicator of group performance. This is not onlywarranted in view of the high correlations but also because instructions emphasized the qualityof ideas and group goals were also formulated with respect to this performance indicator. Itshould be also noted that brainstorming tasks often include additional features (building uponother group member’s ideas) that were not present in our study.


With the help of this procedure it was possible to hold both baselineperformance and goal di"culty constant across conditions even thoughgroup assignment was still almost random.

For control groups (DYB, n! 6), the DYB-instruction was simplyrepeated in Trial 3. Groups in the participative group-goal condition(PGGS, n! 10) were asked to determine a specific group goal through groupdiscussion for Trail 3. For this purpose, each group member first made anindividual suggestion for the group goal. In order to facilitate a GGS e!ect,the experimenter attempted to influence the suggestions of group membersby emphasizing that the group should agree on a challenging group goal. Hestated that, based on data from pilot studies, good groups achieve aperformance improvement of 40% from baseline. Thus, 40% more ideaswould constitute a challenging group goal. Next, individual suggestionswere collected and announced by the experimenter. The mean value of thesesuggestions was computed and fed back to the group. As expected on thebasis of pilot testing, this value was usually below 40%. Next, theexperimenter asked the group to discuss these suggestions and to come upwith a more challenging group goal. The experimenter accepted every groupgoal that represented an increase in di"culty (the mean of these goals isbetween 34% and 38% in the three conditions with specific group goals, seeTable 3 below).

In the second participation condition (PGGS" IGS, n! 6), all groupmembers had to determine individual goals in combination with group goalsfor Trial 3. After group goals had been established in the same manner asPGGS, the experimenter explained that individual goal setting usuallyassists group goal setting. Therefore, each group member was told toformulate individual performance goals (e.g., finding 8 ideas) to support thegroup goal (e.g., finding 32 ideas as a group in the last trial). Theexperimenter then asked group members to write down these suggestionsand asked the group to discuss them so that the sum of the goals would beconsistent with the previously established group goal. The range of theseindividual goals was between 6 and 17 ideas (M! 10.4 for the 24 relevantparticipants) and the mean within-group variance of individual goals was2.47 indicating that individual goals within groups were quite di!erent.2

However, discussions were not di"cult as all groups found it easy to agreeon a set of individual goals that was consistent with the group goal.

Finally, following the rules of a matched-group design, 8 of 10 groupgoals that were set participatively in PGGS conditions were later assigned in

2Di"culty of individual performance goals is correlated both with individual performance inbaseline trials (r! .74, p5 .01) and with di"culty of the first individual suggestion for a groupgoal (r! .41, p5 .05).


a ‘‘tell and sell style’’ by the experimenter in the directive group goalcondition (DGGS, n! 8). He referred to results from pilot studies andstated, for example, that 34% performance improvements from baselineconstitute a challenging but reachable group goal. The experimenterthen encouraged the group to strive for this goal and calculated the numberof ideas that needed to be generated in order to achieve this goal in thelast trial.

Measures

Constructs were assessed by observation on the part of the experimenter andwith the help of three questionnaires distributed during the experiment.Unless stated otherwise below, all self-report items used in Questionnaires1–3 were composed and developed in a series of experiments summarized byWegge (for details see Wegge, 2004).

Observation by the experimenter

For each group, the experimenter noted on a special sheet several aspects ofthe group process for each trial. These variables were: (a) individualperformance (the number of di!erent uses in one trial), (b) groupperformance (the total number of unique uses found in one trial by allgroup members, always verified with the group in a short discussion, seeabove), (c) individual suggestions for a group goal, (d) individual suggestionfor 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 acrossconditions. As the age of group members also did not vary systematicallyacross the four experimental conditions (F! .06, p5 .98), and because datain this study is analysed at the group level (see below), these variables are notconsidered further.

Questionnaire 2

This questionnaire was administered before Trial 2 and assessed thefollowing eight variables:

Perceived participation. As a manipulation check, participants withspecific group goals responded to the following two items using 4-pointscales ranging from low (1) to high (4): ‘‘I had a real voice in determining


which group goal we selected to strive for’’ and ‘‘In comparison tothe experimenter, my impact on the di"culty of group goal was low’’;reverse coded).

Group goal commitment. This was measured by means of nine itemsusing 4-point response scales ranging from low (1) to high (4). These itemsassessed di!erent antecedents of commitment to goals that have beenidentified as important in previous studies (see Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck,& Alge, 1999): the value of goal attainment (e.g., ‘‘If the group reaches itsgoal, this will have pleasant consequences for me’’), expectancy of groupgoal attainment (e.g., ‘‘It is highly likely that we are a little bit better thanthe group goal requires’’), and volitional strength during goal attainment (‘‘Istick to the group goal even when I realize that my feelings divert me fromthis goal’’).

Group cohesion. This was assessed using six items, three indexing likingof other group members (e.g., ‘‘Quite frankly, I have to admit that I like theother group members’’) and three items addressing pride in being a memberof 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 rangingfrom low (1) to high (4).

Group identification. This was assessed with four items using 4-pointresponse scales ranging from low (1) to high (4) selected from Luhtanen andCrocker (1992). Typical items were: ‘‘My membership in this group hasmuch to do with how I feel as a person’’; ‘‘The group I belong to is animportant reflection of who I am’’).

Social compensation. This was assessed by means of three items using 4-point scales ranging from low (1) to high (4). A typical statement with whichparticipants stated their agreement was ‘‘If other group members fail tosolve the group task because they do not have enough ability, I will workespecially hard to reach the group goal’’.

Value of group success and value of group failure. These were measuredwith following two items: ‘‘Please mark on the following scale how valuablethe success or failure of the group would be for you3 . . .’’. The value of

3As success and failure are defined somehow di!erently in DYB groups (e.g., belonging tothe best groups is a success) and in groups with specific group goals (e.g., achieving the groupgoal is a success), corresponding explanations were added in the specific questionnaires used inthese conditions.


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! ‘‘verymeaningful’’.

Expect no free-riding. This was measured with three items using 4-pointscales ranging from low (1) to high (4). An illustrative item was, ‘‘In mygroup we have a free-rider who is taking advantage of other groupmembers’’ (reverse coded).

Questionnaire 3

After Trial 3 of the brainstorming task, a final questionnaire wasadministered. This incorporated measures of the following two constructs:

Intrinsic motivation. This was assessed before performance feedback bymeans of following three items: ‘‘Even if we were not successful in reachingthe group goal . . . (a) working on the group task was really fun, (d) thegroup task was interesting, and (c) during the group task time was passingvery quickly’’. Individuals responded to these items on a 5-point scaleranging from low (1) to high (5).

Desire for further team cooperation. Thiswasmeasured after performancefeedback from the experimenter as an index of future work motivation.For this measure, individuals responded to three items (e.g., ‘‘I can imaginesolvingmore taskswith this group’’) once again using 4-point answering scalesranging from low (1) to high (4).

RESULTS

Measurement reliability, level of analysis, and descriptive data

Based on calculated alpha reliabilities, the measurement reliability of allscales was good (see Table 1). Thus, all constructs are measured in aconsistent way.4 In this study, performance of whole intact groups isexamined. Even though individual performance data is available, fortheoretical reasons the level of analysis is the group (for a discussion of

4This is also true for the variable ‘‘social compensation’’ because this scale was comprised ofonly three items. Here, an alpha of .60 still indicates a satisfactory measurement consistency(Cortina, 1993). This is because the alpha statistic strongly depends on the number of items. Analpha of .50 would indicate, for example, a mean item correlation of .25 for a scale with 3 itemsand this would be equal to an alpha of .77 for a scale with 10 items having the same average itemcorrelation.


TABLE1

AlphaRelia

bilities(inparenthesis),AverageW

ithin-G

roup-Variance

s(V),AverageW

ithin-G

roupAgreement(Rwg),GroupMeans(M

),Standard

Deviations(SD)andCorrelationsofVariablesforallGroups

Variable

VRwg

MSD

12

34

56

78

9

1.groupgo

alcommitment1

0.25

0.91

2.8

0.2

(.79

)2.

groupcohesion

0.32

0.92

2.4

0.2

.47*

(.85

)3.

groupidentification

0.26

0.88

1.3

0.3

7.02

.23

(.83

)4.

social

compensation

0.34

0.82

3.1

0.3

.53*

*.25

.37*

(.60

)5.

intrinsicmotiva

tion

0.57

0.84

3.8

0.4

.38

.51*

*.25

.49*

*(.70

)6.

expectnofree-riding

0.28

0.89

1.6

0.3

.24

.35*

.03

.40*

.18

(.74

)7.

valueofgroupsuccess

1.20

0.60

2.2

0.8

.65*

*.23

7.04

.41*

.41*

7.13

(–)

8.va

lueofgroupfailure

1.01

0.50

1.3

0.5

.47*

.32

.15

.38*

.34

7.18

.74*

*(–)

9.further

team

cooperation

0.41

0.82

2.9

0.2

.33

.53*

*.11

.23

.52*

*.14

.33"

.49*

*(.74

)10

.perform

ance

improvement

––

10.1

5.6

.29

.17

.23

.18

.40*

.05

.20

.32

.31

Notes:1n!24

fourpersongroups(otherwisen!30

fourpersongroups);*p

5.05,

**p5

.01.

414

these issues see Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Thus, with the exception ofalpha reliabilities, statistical analysis is based on group means. In order tocheck whether aggregation at the group level is appropriate, within-group variance (V) of variables was calculated. This measure is easilyinterpretable and recommended5 by Schmidt and Hunter (1989). Asdocumented in Table 1, the average within-group variance is below thecritical value of 1.00 for almost all variables indicating that analysing thedata at the group level is justified. A more fine-grained examination of thisindex reveals that only 7 out of 204 group values are larger than 1.00 forvariables measured with scales. For the two one-item measures (value ofgroup success and group failure) the within-group variance is higher.However, only 9 out of 60 groups have values greater 1.50 so for thesevariables there is moderate within-group consistency. As most priorresearchers have used the Rwg-index developed by James, Demaree, andWolf (1984) to estimate within-group agreement, we also calculated thisindex (assuming random measurement error). Similar conclusions can bedrawn with respect to this data. Mean values of the Rwg-index for allconstructs that were measured using scales are higher than .70, a valuetypically considered to indicate substantial within-group agreement. Forthe two one-item measures, average within-group agreement is lower.Accordingly, taken together, this analysis indicates that aggregation to thegroup level is justified as there is moderate to very high within-groupconsistency.

In view of the observed correlations, the following points are worthnoting. First, all correlations are meaningful. For example, high group goalcommitment correlates positively with high group cohesion and withreadiness to engage in social compensation. Second, in most cases thecorrelations are of low to moderate strength. Thus, it can be concluded thatdi!erent scales (e.g., group cohesion and group identification) do indeedmeasure di!erent constructs. Third, the correlations with respect toimprovement in group performance (ideas in Trial 3 minus ideas in Trial 2)are in line with various theories of work motivation. Here we obtainpositive correlations between performance improvement and group goal

5This measure is similar to the typically computed Rwg-index but less dependent on scalefeatures. For a detailed discussion about di!erences see Schmidt and Hunter (1989) as well asJames, Demaree, and Wolf (1993). Some researchers argue that ICC values should be computedfor this purpose, too. These values determine between group inconsistency. However, we followthe argument of George and James (1993) who explained why documenting between groupinconsistency is not required for justifying aggregation at the group level if consistency withingroups is assumed. According to the terms defined by Klein and Kozlowski (2000), our modelfor aggregation of the data to the group level is a consensus model. Thus, we do not analyse thevariance between groups but only the agreement within the group.


commitment, group cohesion, group identification, and value of groupsuccess. These correlations are not significant in this sample. Nevertheless,they are of similar strength to e!ects observed in recent meta-analyses thathave examined the impact of these variables (e.g., r! .23 for the goalcommitment–performance relationship; see Klein et al., 1999). Finally, thereis also one significant correlation with respect to performance improvementin this study. Performance enhancement is correlated positively withintrinsic task motivation, r! .40, p5 .05. As this variable was measuredafter task completion, the correlation probably reflects not only the e!ects ofmotivation on performance but also the e!ects of group performance onmotivation.

Manipulation checks

Table 2 presents data relevant to examination of the e!ectiveness of theexperimental manipulations. First, with respect to the degree of perceivedparticipation it was found, as expected, that group members inparticipative groups (PGGS and PGGS" IGS) reported having moreinput in determining the group goal than group members with assignedgroup goals, t!73.46, p5 .01. There were no di!erences between PGGSand PGGS" IGS and both values are significantly higher (p5 .05) thanvalues from DGGS groups. Thus, in both conditions group membersperceived themselves to have more voice than in DGGS groups. Second, asexpected, it was also found that group goal commitment was high in allthese conditions. Thus, goal setting was e!ective in establishing commit-ment to group goals. Third, baseline performance (ideas in Trial 2) did notdi!er significantly across the four experimental conditions even though thenumber of groups in each condition is rather small. Thus, experimentalprocedures to assign groups to conditions were e!ective. Finally, a furtherpotential confound in this study is group goal di!culty as a directcomparison between directive and participative goals is only justified if thegoal di"culty is similar. Furthermore, a GGS e!ect is only expected forteams striving for challenging group goals. Again, the data with respect toboth issues (see Table 2) indicates that all manipulations were successful.Compared to baseline performance (ideas in Trial 2), all specific groupgoals can be considered to have been di"cult. On average, groupsintended (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 asthe average performance improvement usually observed in goal-settingstudies. Thus, group goal di"culty was high and comparable acrossconditions with specific group goals and, therefore, a GGS e!ect should beobserved.


TABLE2

Means(M

)andstandard

deviations(SD)ofse

lectedvariablesandco

rresp

ondingresu

ltsfrom

MANOVAs

DYB

(n!6)

DGGS(n

!8)

PGGS(n

!10

)PGGS"IG

S(n

!6)

C-A

D-P

P1-P2

MSD

MSD

MSD

MSD

Perceived

participation

––

2.3

0.7

3.0

0.3

3.1

0.3

–73.46

**Groupgo

alcommitment

––

2.9

0.2

2.8

0.2

2.7

0.2

–Ideasin

trial2

27.0

5.5

28.4

6.5

28.3

9.8

26.8

2.6

Groupgo

alsfortrial3

––

38.3

8.9

37.6

12.3

34.2

3.9

–Ideasin

trial3

32.8

8.4

40.0

5.0

40.1

12.9

36.5

4.6

Perform

ance

improvement

"5.8a

6.3

"11

.6b

5.5

"11

.8b

5.6

"9.7b

3.8

C-A

(trial

2–3)!72.12

*

Notes:DYB!doyo

urbest,DGGS!directive

groupgo

alsetting,

PGGS!participativegroupgo

alsetting,

PGGS"IG

S!PGGSin

combinationwith

individual

goal

setting,

C-A

!HelmertcontrastDYB-controlvs.allother

conditions,

D-P

!Helmertcontrastdirective

vs.participativeconditions,

P1-P2!HelmertcontrastPGGSvs.PGGS"IG

S;*p

5.05,

**p5

.01,

only

sign

ificantt-va

lues

arepresented.a,bindicatehomogeneoussub-groupings

that

di!er

accordingto

additionally

conducted

post

hoctestswithp5

.10.

417

Statistical group comparisons

To test mean di!erences across the four experimental conditions,MANOVAs were used in which data from all groups is analysedsimultaneously. Here the use of Helmert contrasts is most appropriatebecause this form of contrast compares (a) the first group (DYB) to theremaining groups (C –A, this reveals overall GGS e!ects), (b) the secondgroup (DGGS) to the remaining groups (D –P, this reveals di!erencesdue to participation) and (c) the third group (PGGS) to the lastgroup (P1–P2, this shows di!erences due to adding IGS). It should benoted that this form of contrast does not constitute a post hoc com-parison of groups as our corresponding hypotheses require testing exactlythese di!erences. In addition, results from post hoc tests (Duncan)are reported below to describe other significant di!erences betweengroups in order to provide a more fine-grained analysis of motivationalvariables.

Tests of Hypothesis 1

As shown in Table 2, consistent with goal-setting theory and in support ofHypothesis 1, striving for specific, di"cult group goals (DGGS, PGGS, andPGGS" IGS) improved group performance more than striving for DYBgoals. A MANOVA with the factor group (the four group goal conditions)and the factor trial (Trial 2 vs. Trial 3) as a repeated-measures factor wasconducted in order to examine this e!ect more closely. In this analysis, twoe!ects were significant: the main e!ect for trial, F(1, 26)! 95.14, p5 .01,indicating that all groups improved their performance over time, and thetheoretically relevant contrast of the interaction (DYB vs. all other groupsfor performance di!erences across trials), t(26)!72.12, p5 .05, indicatingthat all groups with specific group goals showed improved performancerelative to DYB control groups. As can be seen from Table 2, there wasevidence of a substantial GGS e!ect as groups with challenging,specific group goals improved performance about twice as much as controlgroups.

To estimate the e!ect size of this interaction,6 an additional regressionanalyses was conducted in which a dummy variable was computed thatrecoded the four conditions in such a way that DYB groups had the value 0and all other groups the value 1. As expected, a regression of this dummy

6Unfortunately, the SPSS (11.0) output for the MANOVA procedure does not report e!ectsizes for Helmert contrasts (solely t-values are given), so additional computations are necessaryto get this information.


variable (representing the corresponding Helmert contrast C –A) onperformance improvements from Trial 2 to Trial 3 yielded a significante!ect, standardized ß! .39, R2! .15, F(1, 29)! 5.1, p5 .03. Thus, about15% of variance in group performance improvement was based on the useof group goal-setting interventions.


Table 3 presents data with respect to those motivational variables thatwere expected to underlie the GGS e!ect. Do group goal-settingtechniques decrease the probability of a sucker e!ect by enhancing theexpectation that other team members show no free-riding behaviour? ThisHypothesis (2a) finds only weak support in the data as the correspondingHelmert contrast (C –A) is not significant. However, the results of posthoc testing indicate that the combination of both group and individualgoals (PGGS" IGS) enhances this expectation compared to controlgroups. In line with expectations, the results also show that the value ofgroup success, t(26)!72.15, p5 .05, and the value of group failure,t(26)!72.62, p5 .02, is indeed much higher in groups with specificgroup goals than in DYB groups (Hypothesis 2b). As social loafing ingroups is typically considered to be a motivation loss that is linked withlow values for group success and low value of group failure, socialloafing should therefore be less likely in groups striving for challenginggroup goals.


With respect to potential motivation gains four variables are relevant. Asexpected, groups striving for specific, di"cult group goals reported a higherreadiness to engage in social compensation than DYB groups. However,results from post hoc tests and the significant Helmert contrast comparingDGGS to the two participative conditions (D–P), indicate that this findingwas only obtained for DGGS groups. Thus, only directive group goal-setting procedures increased group members’ readiness to compensate forother weak group members, t(26)! 2.71, p5 .01. A parallel result wasfound with respect to the variable intrinsic motivation. Once again, DGGSwas the best strategy for enhancing this motivational state, t(26)! 2.17,p5 .05. With respect to group cohesion there were no significant di!erences.However, for the group identification measure we found the expectedpattern such that groups with specific, challenging group goals identifiedmore with their group than DYB groups, t(26)!72.23, p5 .04. Finally,the desire for further team activity was generally quite high and did not varyacross conditions.


TABLE3

Means(M

)andstandard

deviations(SD)ofvariablesacross

fourgroupgoalco

nditionsandco

rresp

ondingresu

ltsfrom

MANOVAs

DYB

(n!6)

DGGS(n

!8)

PGGS(n

!10

)PGGS"IG

S(n

!6)

C-A

D-P

P1-P2

MSD

MSD

MSD

MSD

Exp

ectnofree-riding

1.5a

0.4

1.7a

b0.2

1.6a

b0.3

1.8

b0.1

Valueofgroupsuccess

1.6a

1.0

2.5b

0.6

2.3b

0.5

2.1a

b0.9

72.15

*Valueofgroupfailure

0.9a

0.6

1.6b

0.5

1.5b

0.3

1.2a

b0.5

72.62

**Social

compensation

2.9a

0.3

3.3b

0.2

3.0a

0.2

3.1a

0.1

2.71

**Groupcohesion

2.5

0.2

2.4

0.3

2.4

0.2

2.4

0.2

Groupidentification

1.1a

0.1

1.4b

0.3

1.4b

0.2

1.3a

b0.1

72.23

*Intrinsicmotiva

tion

3.6a

0.2

4.1b

0.4

3.8a

b0.5

3.7a

0.4

2.17

*Further

team

cooperation

3.0

0.2

3.1

0.4

3.0

0.2

2.9

0.1

Notes:DYB!doyo

urbest,DGGS!directive

groupgo

alsetting,

PGGS!participativegroupgo

alsetting,

PGGS"IG

S!PGGSin

combinationwith

individual

goal

setting,

C-A

!HelmertcontrastDYB-controlvs.allother

conditions,D-P

!Helmertcontrastdirective

vs.participativeconditions,P1-

P2!HelmertcontrastPGGSvs.P

GGS"IG

S;*

p5

.05,

**p5

.01;

only

sign

ificantt-va

lues

arepresented;a

,bindicatehomogeneoussub-groupings

that

di!er

accordingto

additionally

conducted

post

hoctestswithp5

.10.

420

Mediational analysis

We intimated above that the prevention of motivation losses and thepromotion of motivation gains in groups could be a causal processesresponsible for performance improvements arising from group goal setting.To explore this possibility, exploratory hierarchical regression analyseswere conducted. First, a variable was computed that recoded the fourconditions such that DYB groups had the value 0 and all other groups thevalue 1. As already described above, a regression of this variable onperformance improvements from Trial 2 to Trial 3 yielded a significante!ect, standardized ß! .39, R2! .15, F(1, 29)! 5.1, p5 .03. Next, wetested whether this e!ect could be substantially reduced by incorporatingthe three potential mediator variables7 in the regression before the dummyvariable is entered. This was not the case for value of success, ß! .37,p5 .06, or group identification, ß! .43, p5 .03. However, when the valueof group failure is entered as a potential mediating variable, the e!ectwas reduced, ß! .31, p5 .12, R2! .11, reduction in R2! .04. This findingsuggests that the value placed on group failure plays an important role inexplaining group goal-setting e!ects on performance in brainstorminggroups. That is, teams striving for di"cult group goals seem to beconcerned to avoid failure and this contributes to good brainstormingperformance.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study are important in several aspects. First, we found theexpected group goal-setting e!ect in groups performing group brainstorm-ing tasks. This e!ect was substantial in magnitude with groups striving forchallenging group goals generating approximately twice as many additionalideas ("11 ideas) as DYB control groups ("6 ideas). On this basis, it can beconcluded that group goal-setting techniques do indeed have the capacity toimprove brainstorming performance in groups. As performance improve-ments were similar for all three of the group goal-setting strategies (DGGS,PGGS, and PGGS" IGS) examined in this study, we can draw theadditional conclusion that this e!ect is not only substantial but also quiterobust: It can be achieved in several ways. In addition, if we consider thatperformance improvements in DYB groups probably reflect group learning

7Following the basic logic of Baron and Kenny (1986), there are three potential mediatingvariables that might underlie the interaction found for group performance because similarinteractions (C–A) were found for these variables (Table 3). A further test in which all threevariables were considered did not lead to di!erent results.


processes, it can further be concluded that this e!ect is found even whenthese learning processes are controlled.

A second objective of this study was to explore how group goal settingimproves work motivation and performance in teams. With respect to thisgoal, several new insights were gained. Previous research has shown thatgroup 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) alsoimproves group performance for motivational reasons. It was argued thatGGS enhances work motivation in teams by preventing motivation lossessuch as social loafing and sucker e!ects and by promoting motivation gainssuch as social compensation and related phenomena (e.g., group identifica-tion). In support of this idea, we found (a) that PGGS" IGS increased theexpectation that no-one is free-riding in the group (thereby reducing thelikelihood of a sucker e!ect), (b) that GGS increased the value of groupsuccess and the value of group failure (thereby counteracting social loafing),(c) that GGS increased group identification, and (d) that DGGS, inparticular, increased intrinsic task motivation and the readiness of groupmembers to engage in social compensation.

The finding that the establishment of group goals has an impact on groupidentification is quite novel (Wegge & Haslam, 2003). As group identifica-tion is an important variable in explaining other motivation gains (e.g.,social labouring) and motivations losses (e.g., soldiering) in teams, andbecause high group identification can also promote organizational citizen-ship behaviour (e.g., helping new colleagues; Haslam, Powell, & Turner,2000; Tyler & Blader, 2000) and other forms of positive organizationalfunctioning (e.g., see Haslam et al., 2003), this observation deserves furtherattention (see van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003; Worchel, Rothgerber,Day, Hart, & Butemeyer, 1998). Although the present results suggest thatthis e!ect is not especially strong, group goal setting did increase groupidentification—suggesting that this manipulation also has the potential to beuseful in situations where achieving high team identification is a meaningfulobjective in itself.

Considering these findings together, it indeed seems promising to examinethe possible links between goal-setting theory and social psychologicalprocesses pertaining to motivation losses and motivation gains in teams.However, it is worth noting that the reduction of motivation losses and thepromotion of motivation gains that was observed on the basis ofcorresponding attitude measures did not mediate the performance improve-ments produced by the various group goal-setting strategies. Only onevariable (i.e., the value of group failure) emerged as a significant mediatingvariable in this respect. Thus, even though some attitudes related tomotivation gains and losses in teams varied significantly as a function of


condition, there may well have been other processes that were responsiblefor the performance improvements obtained in this study (e.g., investingmore cognitive e!ort, di!erences in search of long term memory, a reductionof evaluation apprehension; see Paulus et al., 2002; Wegge, 2001). This isclearly an issue that merits investigation in future research.

Third, this study provided an opportunity to explore potential di!erencesin the e"cacy of three di!erent group goal-setting strategies. With respect tothis issue, the findings are rather meagre as the di!erences betweenconditions were weak. It was not possible, for example, to show thatstriving for a combination of participatively set group goals and partici-patively set individual performance goals was superior to striving for groupgoals alone (PGGS or DGGS). Even though previous evidence regardingthis issue is mixed, we expected a positive e!ect for PGGS" IGS becausecommitment to group goals should be increased. This assumption can alsobe derived from findings in the area of volitional psychology whichdocument an increase in goal commitment and goal fulfilment as a result ofhaving clear, specific implementation intentions (e.g., Brandstatter, Leng-felder, & Gollwitzer, 2001). Why was there no comparable e!ect in thepresent study? In our view, the most plausible explanation is that the rathersimple group task used here was not one that is especially likely to lead toimprovement in goal commitment and performance due to combining bothtypes of goals. That is, group brainstorming was an additive task and therewas no specialization of labour within the group. Therefore, establishing acommon group goal (to produce 32 ideas as a group) almost inevitablymakes it clear which goals individual members should strive for (i.e., if thegroup has four members then every group member should produce 8 ideas).It might therefore be the case that the e!ectiveness of this group goal-settingstrategy would be more pronounced in relation to more complex tasks (i.e.,those with high task interdependence or high task complexity). Nevertheless,we should not forget that, consistent with the findings from Crown andRosse (1995), the data from the present study also indicate that acombination of both goals might establish a group-supportive performanceorientation as expectations that other group members will not free ride wereonly increased in this condition. Hence, this group goal-setting strategycould prove to be most appropriate in situations where sucker e!ects are apotential problem.

In sum, the results of this study clearly demonstrate that goal-settingtheory has to be extended when moving from the individual to the grouplevel. Moving beyond the work of Weldon and Weingart (1993), the studyhas shown that the e!ects of di!erent group goals on group performancerely on the promotion of motivation gains and the prevention of multiplemotivation losses in groups. Therefore, these motivational processes shouldbe considered as important mediating variables in an extended theory of


group goal setting. However, it is also worth noting that further worklinking goal-setting research to research traditions within social psychologywill not only be of benefit to group goal-setting research. It can be expectedthat social psychological theories that deal with motivational phenomena ingroups (e.g., social compensation, social labouring) can also be substantiallyadvanced (see Ellemers et al., 2004, for a similar argument). In particular,there seems to be considerable potential for integrating the principles of thesocial identity approach (Haslam, 2004; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003)with the tenets of goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002) in order todevelop a more complete explanation of a range of motivational phenomenain groups.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This study has several limitations. In the first instance, caution ininterpreting the results is warranted due to the rather low statistical powerat the group level. However, it should be also noted that the strategy wedeveloped to cope with some of the problems linked to small samples (e.g.,using a matched group design) was successful as several importantpreconditions (e.g., having a similar baseline performance before interven-tions are enacted, having constant goal di"culty across conditions) wereachieved. Nevertheless, further replications with a larger number of groupswould of course be desirable.

Caution in generalizing these findings is also warranted due to the factthat we examined ad hoc groups of students in a laboratory. Whileconducting a study in a laboratory context has some advantages (e.g., inallowing a fine-grained analysis of di!erent group goal-setting procedures),it also has limitations. We do not know, for example, whether the behaviourof university students and their temporary ‘‘supervisor’’ in a short-termsetting can be generalized to the behaviour of employees at the workplacewhere career success and promotion are at stake. However, especially in therealm of goal-setting research there is ample evidence that findings from thelaboratory generalize to more realistic conditions (Locke, 1986; Locke &Latham, 2002). Primarily, this is because this generalization is based onsound theory that is validated in an array of contexts (see Haslam & Reicher,in press, for a similar argument). Thus, it seems reasonable to assume thatcorresponding results to those obtained here could also be obtained inorganizational teams. Nevertheless, as laboratory groups are necessarilydecontextualized relative to applied settings, and because these groupsneither have a common history nor a common future, replication studies infield settings certainly seem warranted.

Moreover, we should be also aware of the fact that potentially influentialfactors were not measured (e.g., perceptions regarding indispensability of


own e!orts, evaluation apprehension) and not manipulated in this study.Even though the limited evidence we have so far indicates that advantages ofgroup goal setting are probably task-specific (Wegge & Kleinbeck, 1996;Weldon & Weingart, 1993), task demands were also not systematicallyvaried in this study. Future research should address this lacuna byexamining other group tasks and the impact of task interdependence duringteamwork. Of course, it also remains to be seen how e!ective groupbrainstorming might become if the practice of setting challenging groupgoals were combined with other interventions (e.g., use of a trainedfacilitator, brain-writing techniques, or procedures that ask group membersto 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 (checkingand correcting for very similar ideas), not their quality. Because priorresearch has found that there is often a strong association between thenumber of ideas and the flexibility and originality of ideas (Thompson, 2003,p. 98), we did not attempt a more detailed analysis of our data. However, amore sophisticated analysis in terms of originality or flexibility of ideasproduced by group members could potentially yield additional insights (e.g.,see Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, & Haslam, in press). Moreover, this might beanother avenue for further research as such an analysis might help touncover the cognitive processes that are involved in producing group goal-setting e!ects in brainstorming groups.

Two further limitations of this study are linked to the procedures we usedfor group brainstorming. First, the available time for finding ideas wasrather short (3 minutes). In brainstorming tasks, ideas are generated withlow e!ort and di"culty in particular at the beginning of the process (Oxleyet al., 1996; Paulus et al., 2002). Thus, the impact of motivational forces isprobably much easier to demonstrate over a longer time period. Futurestudies, therefore, should examine whether group goal setting is even moree!ective over longer time periods (e.g., 15 minutes). That said, it was notablethat group goal setting significantly improved performance even under therestricted time conditions selected in this study—so in many ways this was astringent test of our arguments.

Second, social loafing e!ects occur mainly in situations where groupmembers’ contributions are not identifiable and where performance feed-back is not available (Karau & Williams, 1993; Paulus et al., 2002). Asgroup members were asked to read their ideas out loud to the rest of thegroup after each trial, group members’ performance was identifiable andevaluated by other group members and the experimenter. Thus, socialloafing would not necessarily be expected to have occurred in this contextand, accordingly, it would be interesting to investigate whether group goal-setting e!ects are stronger in conditions where social loafing is more likely(e.g., when ideas generation is anonymous; see Erez & Somech, 1996).


Again, though, when we consider that social loafing was unlikely to occur inthis experiment and that DYB instructions also motivated groups toincrease their brainstorming performance, the demonstration of a groupgoal-setting e!ect in comparison to DYB groups is nontrivial and all themore impressive.

Finally, it should be also emphasized that improving group performancein organizations necessarily involves much more than just using the mostappropriate leadership (goal-setting) technique. To make the use of groupwork in organizations a real success, we also have to take into considerationa range of other factors. These include, for example, e!ective group taskdesign (Ulich & Weber, 1996; van Vijfeijken, Kleingeld, van Tuijl, Algera, &Thierry, 2002), relevant group feedback (Deshon et al., 2004; Kluger &DeNisi, 1996; Schmidt & Kleinbeck, 1997), group training and groupdevelopment (Kozlowski, Gully, Nasson, & Smith, 1999) and appropriategroup 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 e!ective tool in theorganizational psychologists’ armoury. On this basis, we encourageresearchers as well as practitioners to use these strategies in order toimprove brainstorming and other related forms of performance in teams.

REFERENCES

Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S. A. (in press). Social identity and the recognitionof creativity in groups. British Journal of Social Psychology.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator –mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality 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 ande"cient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 946 – 960.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group e!ectiveness researchfrom the shop floor to the executive site. Journal of Management, 23, 239 – 290.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coe"cient 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 productivitythrough the integration of individual and group goals. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 64, 138 – 150.

DeMatteo, J. S., Eby, L. T., & Sundstrom, E. (1998). Team-based rewards: Currentempirical 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 e!ects on the regulation of individual andteam performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035 – 1056.


Durham, C. C., Locke, E. A., Poon, J. M. L., & McLeod, P. L. (2000). E!ects of group goalsand time pressure on group e"cacy, information seeking, strategy and performance. HumanPerformance, 13, 115 – 138.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work:A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 29, 459 – 478.

Erez, M. (1995). Prospects of participative management in developing countries: The role ofsocio-cultural environment. In D. M. Saunders & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), New approaches toemployee management (Vol. 3, pp. 171 – 196). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Erez, M., & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? E!ects ofculture 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 andmeta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287 – 322.

George, J. M., & James, L. R. (1993). Personality, a!ect, and behavior in groups revisited:Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis and a recent application of within and betweenanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 798 – 804.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. (2000). Short-termand long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance overtime. 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 socialand personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupa-tional and Organizational Psychology, 76, 83 – 113.

Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizationalpsychology: 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 workmotivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainableorganizational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 319 – 339.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (in press). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfoldingdynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology.

Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Postmes, T., Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Webley, P. (in press). Stickingto our guns: Social identity as a basis for the maintenance of commitment to falteringorganizational projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Hertel, G. (2000). Motivation gains in groups: A brief review of the state of the art. Zeitschriftfur Sozialpsychologie, 31, 169 – 175.

Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goalsetting, task interdependence and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal ofWork 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 loafing: E!ects of a social

interaction manipulation on individual motivation within groups. Group Dynamics: Theory,Research and Practice, 2, 185 – 191.


Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoreticalintegration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681 – 706.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The e!ects of group cohesiveness on social loafing andsocial compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 1, 156 – 168.

Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 45, 819 – 828.

Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member’s e!ort and group motivationlosses: Free-rider e!ects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78 – 94.

Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 55, 22.1 – 22.32.

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and thegoal setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 64, 885 – 896.

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods inorganizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The e!ects of feedback interventions on performance: Ahistorical 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 adaptiveteams: 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 sta!ng,motivation, and development (pp. 240 – 292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving scientific disputes by the joint designof crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regardingparticipation in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 73, 753 – 772.

Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. EnglewoodCli!s, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting andtask motivation. The American Psychologist, 57, 705 – 717.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s socialidentity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302 – 318.

Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. L. U. (1987). E!ects of goals and feedback onperformance 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 andinstrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 395 – 405.

Mitchell, T. R., & Silver, W. S. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers areinterdependent: E!ects on task strategies and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,75, 185 – 193.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of the influence ofgroup 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 e!ects 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-generatinggroups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 237 – 262.

Paulus, P. B., Dugosh, K. L., Dzindolet, M. T., Coskun, H., & Putman, V. L. (2002). Social andcognitive influences in group brainstorming: Predicting production gains and losses.European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 299 – 325.


Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity inorganizations. 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 improvingsatisfaction 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). E!ects of leader’s communication style and participative goal setting onperformance and attitudes. Human Performance, 9, 51 – 64.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1989). Interrater reliability coe"cients cannot be computedwhen only one stimulus is rated. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 368 – 370.

Schmidt, K.-H., & Kleinbeck, U. (1997). Relationships between group-based performancemeasures, feedback, and organizational context factors. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 6, 303 – 319.

Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation and the Kohler e!ect:Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. In E. Witte &J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonalrelations (pp. 37 – 65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy ofManagement Executive, 17, 96 – 111.

Tjosvold, D. (1998). Conflict over the study of conflict: 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 andbehavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Ulich, E., & Weber, W. G. (1996). Dimensions, criteria and evaluation of work groupautonomy. 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:Identification as the key to group-oriented e!ort. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg,M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory fororganizational practice (pp. 29 – 42). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Van Leeuwen, E., & van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How a group goal can reduce matching ingroup performance: Shifts in standards for determining a fair contribution of e!ort. Journalof Social Psychology, 142, 73 – 86.

Van Vijfeijken, H., Kleingeld, A., van Tuijl, H., Algera, J. A., & Thierry, H. (2002). Taskcomplexity and task, goal, and reward interdependence in group performancemanagement: Aprescriptive model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 363 – 383.

Wagner, J. A. (1994). Participation e!ects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsiderationof research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19, 312 – 330.

Wegge, J. (2000). Participation in group goal setting: Some novel findings and a comprehensivemodel as a new ending to an old story. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49,498 – 516.

Wegge, J. (2001). Motivation, information processing and performance: E!ects of goalsetting on basic cognitive processes. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trendsand prospects in motivation research (pp. 269 – 296). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Wegge, J. (2004). Fuhrung 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. InS. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity atwork: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 43 – 60). New York: Taylor &Francis.


Wegge, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). When group goal setting fails: The impact of task complexityand unfair supervisors. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Wegge, J., & Kleinbeck, U. (1996). Goal-setting and group performance: Impact of achievementand a"liation motives, participation in goal-setting, and task interdependence of groupmembers. 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, e!ort, and planningon group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 682 – 693.

Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the relationship betweena group goal and improved group performance. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 61, 555 – 569.

Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British Journal ofSocial Psychology, 32, 307 – 334.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativityand innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 51, 355 – 424.

West, M. A., Borrill, C., & Unsworth, K. L. (1998). Team e!ectiveness in organizations. InC. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizationalpsychology (Vol. 13, pp. 1 – 48). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Widmeyer, W. N., & Ducharme, K. (1997). Team building through team goal setting. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 9, 97 – 113.

Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The e!ects ofexpectations 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 andindividual productivity within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 389 – 413.

Manuscript received November 2004Revised manuscript received September 2005


improving work motivation and performance in brainstorming groups- the eﬀects of three group ...

Documents

challenging group goal

basis group goal setting

appropriate group goal

dierent group goal conditions

group members appraisal

weak group members

value of group failure

value of group success