||Impact of Goal Orientation for Help-giving behavior and Help-seeking behavior Employee Performance
||Institute of Engineering Management (on the job class)
本研究是運用統計軟體SPSS 12.0 以及Amos 17.0進行統計分析，使用的統計方法包括：敘述性統計分析、因素分析、信度分析、效度分析以及結構方程模式分析等研究方法驗證各研究變數的影響關係。實證結果發現如下：
Impact of Goal Orientation for Help-giving behavior and Help-seeking behavior Employee Performance
Advisor: Ming-Tien Tsai
Engineering Management ,College of Engineering
This study examines the relationships among Help-giving behavior, Help-seeking behavior for goal orientation, and the impact of employee performance from Help-giving behavior, Help-seeking behavior. This research has chosen Southern Taiwan Science Park(STSP)’s employees as its primary research subjects. Using the convenience sampling in the middle of September 2013, the survey was carried out over a one-month period. The survey was implemented by distributing 700 samples for members. There are total 553 valid samples and the effective response rate is about 79%.
This study is analyzed with statistics software by SPSS 12.0 and Amos 17.0. The empirical data was analyzed by descriptive statistics analysis, factor analysis, reliability analysis, validity analysis, and then the structural equation modeling was adopted to measure correlations among the variables. The results of this study are as follows: (1):Learn goal orientation and helping behavior have a positive relationship. (2):Proven goal orientation and helping behavior have a positive relationship. (3):Avoid goal orientation and helping behavior no positive relationship. (4):Learn goal orientation and Help-seeking behavior is a positive relationship. (5):Proven goal orientation and Help-seeking behavior have a positive relationship. (6):Avoid goal orientation and Help-seeking behavior no positive relationship. (7):Helping behavior and employee performance showing a positive relationship. (8):Help-seeking behavior and employee performance no positive relationship.
Key words: Goal orientation; Helping behavior; Help-seeking; Performance
HR-related companies during the decision-making process for employees, by lifting the salary level on either of these two ways of promotion, is the most real value of employee incentive effect of the two decisions.
I currently serving in the Tainan Science Park, a private enterprise, the company is currently implementing employee performance management system in order to establish a set of institutionalized employee performance appraisal system that allows each employee to work on their own work, to get the relative performance appraisal. Students also have the opportunity to participate in the implementation of this system, so I want to try to quantify the data to explore the goal-oriented, helping behavior, help correlation between behavior and employee performance.
Human resources are important for enterprises corporate between how employees continued to work with a positive attitude and work behavior is an important issue at present enterprises must face.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Dweck (1988) theoretical framework for the proposed goal-oriented, since the ability of the individual to hold intrinsic theoretical point of view is different, so the formation of a different personal goal orientation, thereby affecting the performance and behavior of the individuals themselves, so the goal-oriented definition is a tendency personality.
In the present study is to investigate the goal-directed behavior by helping others or help-seeking behavior and performance and promotion of the relationship between the likelihood, helping behavior or help conduct its own management strategy is the use of an individual because of the different personality traits, so in behavior will vary on different, so this study Dweck for goal-oriented definition of the theory, will be regarded as a goal-oriented individual personality traits.
Helping behavior (helping behavior) generation, mainly based on the "relationship" model. Because of the callers, so will have to help others who are relatively rather helping behavior in association established between the two interact. The so-called "helping relationship" (helping relationship) but the relationship between the two bodies in the build mode, we party together to solve problems encountered, and thus enhance individuals have plagued its ability to solve problems, or to make a more effective decisions correctly, thus contributing to the growth of the individual itself.
Help-seeking behavior (Help-seeking behavior) can be seen as an individual in the face of stress or distress, when he reflects a coping mechanism (coping mechanism) (Hwang, 1977).
Because self-esteem or other factors, excessive for help learners, learners themselves, is likely to produce a negative impact. Anderson & Messick (1974) suggested that when individuals need help, they will seek help from other individuals or groups, and then get a better learning conditions and more mastery of skills. That is their individual needs will be reflected in the message, and then get help.
The purpose of employee performance assessment is that the actual performance of the employee work performance, and see if there are differences in their performance goals set with the organization; any organization or company, is bound to the establishment, operation, and the process of growing up, the setting short-term goals, medium-term objectives and long-term goals, and when after a certain time, managers must understand or assessment whether departments and organizations to reach the pre-set targets, so that will design some criteria or methods to measure job performance of employees belong performance, and then based on the results of the mobilization of personnel evaluation, reward employees, adjust business strategy, planning and organization, namely the purpose of performance evaluation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The test results of the present study is hereby various variables organized into the following :
(1):Learn goal orientation and helping behavior have a positive relationship.
(2):Proven goal orientation and helping behavior have a positive relationship.
(3):Avoid goal orientation and helping behavior no positive relationship.
(4):Learn goal orientation and Help-seeking behavior is a positive relationship.
(5):Proven goal orientation and Help-seeking behavior have a positive relationship. (6):Avoid goal orientation and Help-seeking behavior no positive relationship.
(7):Helping behavior and employee performance showing a positive relationship. (8):Help-seeking behavior and employee performance no positive relationship.
Avoidance goal orientation and helping behavior and help-seeking behavior and no significant relationship because avoidance goal-oriented individual creativity will lead to low performance, and when the organization transaction lack of clear rules and procedures, norms, avoidance goal orientation will lead to individual creativity low effect will be stronger. Avoidance goal-oriented person, although not easy to work by their intrinsic motivation incentive to improve effectiveness.
Helping behavior and performance of employee performance and no significant relationship, such as Bergeron (2007) puts it, the staff takes time to engage in extra-role behavior to help others, this one's behavior is beneficial in terms of the organization as a whole, but for someone to say, but it is necessary to pay the extra time and effort, but the impact on the performance of individual employee performance.
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究流程 3
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 目標導向 5
第二節 助人行為 9
第三節 求助行為 11
第四節 員工績效 14
第三章 研究方法與設計 16
第一節 研究架構與研究假設 16
第二節 研究變數衡量 17
第三節 研究設計與研究對象 20
第四節 資料分析方法 21
第四章 資料分析結果 27
第一節 樣本結構分析 27
第二節 因素分析 30
第三節 信度分析 33
第四節 結構方程模式分析和推導 37
第五章 結論與建議 40
第一節 研究結果與討論 40
第二節 研究限制與建議 41
程炳林（民92），四向度目標導向模式之研究，師大學報：教育類，第48 卷，第1 期，頁15-58。
1. Anderson, S., & Messick, S.(1974).Social competency in young children: Developmental Psychology, 10,282-293.
2. Artemis, C., & Prashant, B. (2001). A Multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32: 379-306.
3. Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E.(2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36–59.
4. Bar Tal,D. （1976）.Prosocial Behavior：theory and research.New York：Hal sated press.
5. Bell, B.S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2002. Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3): 497-505.
6. Bluedorn, A.C.(1982). A Unified Model of Turnover from Organizations, Human Relations (35), pp.135-153.
7. Bobko, P., & Colella, A. 1994. Employee reactions to performance standards: A review and research propositions. Personnel Psychology, 47: 1-29.
8. Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002).Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307.
9. Butler, R., & Newman, O. (1995). Effects of task and ego achievement goals on help-seeking behaviors and attitudes.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 261-271.
10. Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2003. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3): 552-560.
11. Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56: 836-849.
12. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1996. Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1): 26–48.
13. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E.(1997).What Makes Teams Work ? Group Effectiveness Research From the Shop Floor to The Executive Suite, Journal of Management, 23,239-290.
14. Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595-606.
15. Cunningham, T. A. & Rosenberg, E. 1998. Achieving corporate objectives: Total performance management. Hoosier Banker, 82(11): 10-18.
16. Cynthia L., Hui, C., Tinsley, C. H., & Niu, X. 2006. Goal orientations and performance: Role of temporal norms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 484-498.
17. Dovidio,J.F.（1984）.Helping behavior and Altruism：An empirical and conceptual overview. Berkowitz（Ed.）Advances in Experimental Social Psychology （Vol.17, pp.361-427）
18. Duba, J.(1993). Goals: A social-cognitive approach to the study of achievement motivation in sport. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy & L. K. Tennant(Eds.).
19. Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality and development. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Perspectives on motivation, 199-235, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
20. Dweck, C. S. & E. L. Leggett, "A Social-Cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality",Psychological Review, 95(2), 1988, pp.256-273.
21. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. 1997. A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 218-232.
22. Elliot, A. J., ＆ McGregor, H. A. 2001. A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3): 501-519.
23. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. 1988. Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1): 5-12.
24. Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P. and McIntyre, K. K. (2003), ―Employee Creativity in Taiwan: An Application of Role Identity Theory‖, Academy of Management Journal. 46(5), pp.618-630.
25. Ferris, Gerald R, Judge, Timothy A, Rowland, Kendrith M, Fitzgibbons, Dale E (1994). Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 101-135.
26. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. New York: Harper & Brothers.
27. Forbes, J. B.(1987). Early intraorganizational mobility: Patterns and influences. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 110-125.
28. Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E.(1998).Relationships of goal orientation meta-cognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology,83(2),218-233.
29. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology: 159-170.
30. Heider, F.(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York; Wiley. Heyman, G. D. & Dweck, C. S.(1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 231-247.
31. Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. 2004. Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3): 368-384.
32. Jones, E. E. & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self presentation. In J. Suls(Ed). Psychological Pespectives on the Self, 231-262. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Jones, E. E.& Wortman, C.(1973). Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
34. Judge, T. A. & Ferris, G. R.(1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80-105.
35. Kanfer, R. 1990. Motivational and individual differences in learning: An integration of developmental, differential and cognitive perspectives. Learning and Individual Differences, 2: 221–239.
36. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 254-284.
37. Kolenko, T. A., & Aldag, R. J. 1989. Congruence perceptions and managerial career/work outcomes: An exploratory analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Academy of Management.
38. Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E., 1993. Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2): 311-328.
39. Krebs,D.L.（1970）.Altruism an examination of the concept and a review of literature. Psychological Bulletin,73,258-302
40. Kumar, K.& Beyerlen, M.(1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619-627.
41. Kurtzberg, T. R., and Amabile (2001) T. M., From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285-294.
42. Law, K. S., Tse, D. K., & Zhou, N. 2003. Does human resource management matter in a transitional economy? Journal of International Business Studies, 34(3): 255-265.
43. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J. & Stilwell, D.(1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
44. Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
45. London, M & Stumpf, S. A.(1983). Effects of candidate characteristics on management promotion decisions: An experimental study. Personnel Psychology, 36, 241-259.
46. Markham, W. T, Harlan, S. L & Hackett, E. J.(1987). Promotion opportunity in organizations: Causes and consequences. Research in Personal and Human Resource Management, 5, 223-287.
47. Mathieu, J. E. & Farr, J. L. 1991. Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, job Involvement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 127-133.
48. Mathisena, G. E., & Bronnick, K. S. (2009). Creative self-efficacy: An intervention study. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 21−29.
49. Maynard, D. C., & Hakel, M. D. 1997. Effects of objective and subjective task complexity on task performance. Human Performance, 10: 303–330.
50. Medoff, J. L & Abraham, K. G.(1981). Are those paid more really more productive? The case of experience. Journal of Human Resources, 16, 186-216.
51. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. 1988. Students’ goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80: 514–523.
52. Middleton, M. J., ＆ Midgley, C. 1997. Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Pschology, 89(4): 710-718.
53. Morrison, E. W. & Bies, R. J.(1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking process: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 16, 522-541.
54. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4): 475-480.
55. Newman, J. E. (1974). Predicting Absenteeism and Turnover: A Field Comparisonof Fishbein‘s Model and Traditional Job Attitude Measures. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 59, 610-615.
56. Nicholls, J. G. 1984. Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91: 328-346.
57. Nicholls, J. G. 1989. The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58. O’Reilly, C. A. 1977. Personality Job Fit – Implications for Individual Attitudes and Performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18(1): 36.
59. Pavett, C. M & Lau, A. W.(1983). Managerial work: The influenceof hierarchical level and functional specialty. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 170-177.
60. Philips, J. M., & Gully, S.M. 1997. Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self –efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5): 792-802.
61. Phillip, M. M., & Steele-Johnson, D. 2001. The role of Subjective Task Complexity in Goal Orientation, Self-Efficacy, and Performance Relations. Human Performance, 14(2): 169-186.
62. Pintrich, P. R. (2000c). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.3, 544-555.
63. Porter, G., & Tansky, J. W. 1996. Learning orientation of employees: Moving toward organization - based assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(2): 165-178.
64. Powers, T. A & Zuroff, D. C.(1988). Interpersonal consequences of over self-criticism: A comparison with neutral and self-enhancing presentations of self. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 54, 1054-1062.
65. Rasch, R. H., & Tosi, H. L. 1992. Factors affecting software developers’ performance: An integrated approach. MIS Quarterly, 16: 395–413.
66. Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F. & Lawler, J. J. 2000. Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 643-658.
67. Rowland, K. M., Career and human Resource Development, Gerald R. Ferris, 1990.
68. Ryan,A. M. & Hicks, L.(1997) Social goals, academic goal, and avoiding seeking help in the classroom. Journal of Early Adolescence,17(2),152.
69. Sandy, J. W. & Robert, C. L.(1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232-260.
70. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): 580-607.
71. Seashore, S. E. & Taber, T. D. 1975. Job Satisfaction Indicators and Their Correlation. American Behavior Science, 13(3): 333-368.
72. Seegers, G., Putten, C. M. V. & Brabander, C. J. D. (2002). Goal orientation, perceived task outcome and task demands in mathematics task: Effects on students’ attitude in actual task setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3), 365-384.
73. Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D. & Keller, R. T. 1976. The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19: 195-212.
74. Sinclair, R. C., & Mark, M. M. (1992). The influence of mood state on judgment and action: Effects on persuasion, categorization, social justice, person perception, and judgmental accuracy. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgment (pp. 165-193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
75. Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P., O‘Bannon, D.P., & Scully, J.A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 412-438.
76. Stewart G. L., & Barrick, M. R. 2000. Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2): 135-148.
77. Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12: 257-285.
78. Tishby, Orya, Turel, Miriam, Gumpel, Omer, Pinus, Uri, Lavy (2001). Help-seeking attitudes among israeli adolescents.Adolescence, 36,142.
79. Urdan, T. C. 1997. Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. Advance in motivation and achievement, 10: 99-14.
80. VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. 1997. A Test of the Influence of Goal Orientation on the Feedback Seeking Process. Journal of Marketing, 49: 76-86.
81. VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S. P. 2000. An integrated model of feedback –seeking behavior: Disposition, context, and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 996-1003.
82. Villanova, P. & Bernardin, H. J.(1989). Impression management in the context of performance appraisal. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld(Eds.). Impression management in the organization,235-247. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
83. Weingart, L. R. 1992. Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 682–693.
84. Whitney, M., Daft, R. L., & Cooper, W. H. 1983. Measures of Perrow's work unit technology: An empirical assessment and a new scale. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (1): 45-63.
85. Wood, R. 1986. Task Complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 37: 60-82.
86. Wortman, C. B. & Linsenmeir, J. A.(1977). Interpersonal attraction and techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. M. Staw & G.R. Salancik(Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior: 133-178. Chicago: St. Clair Press.