Is Competition Engaging? Examining the Interactive Effects of Goal Orientation and Competitive Work Environment on Engagement

Abstract

Contemporary work environments are growing increasingly competitive. However, some employees may "fi t" with such environments better than others. This study examined how the relationship between employees' goal orientations (learning, proving, and avoidance) and engagement is infl uenced by the competitive environment of their workplace. By investigating the interactive effect of goal orientation and competitive work environment, this research expands our understanding of factors leading to engagement. We tested our model using a sample of 345 working adults from a variety of organizations across several different industries. Results indicate that learning goal orientation was positively related to engagement while avoidance goal orientation was negatively related to engagement. Competitive work environment (CWE) interacted with learning orientation and proving orientation to predict engagement. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our results for human resource management.

Effect of learning goal orientation on work engagement through job crafting

“…LGO and work engagement (Adriaenssens et al, 2015;Jones et al, 2017), this study showed that a partial indirect path also exists in the relationship. The results suggest that individuals with high learning goals are engaged in their work not only because they are intrinsically motivated to acquire knowledge or skills but also because they are eager to redesign their jobs toward more challenging ones.…”

“…Accordingly, previous research has indicated that individuals holding a learning goal view challenging tasks as opportunities to learn, whereas individuals holding a performance goal perceive challenging tasks as inherently risky because they fear that they might fail and reveal their inadequate abilities to others (Dragoni et al, 2009). Consistent with this argument, Adriaenssens et al (2015) and Jones et al (2017) reported a positive relationship between LGO and work engagement. Although some studies demonstrate that performance-prove and performance-avoid orientations have positive effects on performance outcomes, the results were mixed and unclear (e.g.…”

Are embedded employees active or passive? The roles of learning goal orientation and preferences for wide task boundaries and job mobility in the embeddedness–voice link

“…These increases are in turn linked to voice, which can be viewed as an improvement‐oriented behavior intended to help the organization. LGO is the extent to which one is motivated to master new skills and knowledge (Elliot & Dweck, ; Seijts, Latham, Tasa, & Latham, ), and has attracted growing attention from HR practitioners (De Clercq, Rahman, & Belausteguigoitia, ; Jones, Davis, & Thomas, ; London & Sessa, ). LGO precisely captures employees' interest in long‐term improvement.…”

“…LGO is the extent to which one is motivated to master new skills and knowledge (Elliot & Dweck, 1988;Seijts, Latham, Tasa, & Latham, 2004), and has attracted growing attention from HR practitioners (De Clercq, Rahman, & Belausteguigoitia, 2017;Jones, Davis, & Thomas, 2017;London & Sessa, 2007).…”

Trait and perceived environmental competitiveness in achievement situations

“…In short, individuals are posited to regulate their trait‐ or perception‐based competitive concerns through the adoption and pursuit of performance‐approach and performance‐avoidance goals. Several studies have provided empirical support for links between trait competitiveness and both performance‐approach and performance‐avoidance goals (Baranik, Barron, & Finney, ; Baranik, Stanley, Bynum, & Lance, ; Elliot, Al‐Dhobaiban, Kobeisy, et al, ; Harackiewicz, Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink‐Garcia, & Tauer, ; Murayama & Elliot, ; Pastor, Barron, Miller, & Davis, ; Tanaka & Yamauchi, ), and between perceived environmental competitiveness and both performance‐approach and performance‐avoidance goals (Jones, Davis, & Thomas, ; Koul, Roy, & Lerdpornkulrat, ; Lochbaum, Jean‐Noel, Pinar, & Gilson, ; Midgley & Urdan, ; Murayama & Elliot, ; Papaioannou, Ampatzoglou, Kalogiannis, & Sagovits, ; Shih, ; Wolters, ; cf. Bong, ).…”