Chasing two hares at once: The effects of goal orientation (in)congruence in teams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Organizations must excel at what they do well while also learning new ways of operating to achieve long‐term success. Work teams may thus find themselves pursuing contradictory objectives to support the organization's strategy. We investigated teams' goal orientation (in)congruence and its impact on task meaningfulness and, ultimately, performance, hypothesizing the potential pitfalls of teams simultaneously pursuing both learning‐ and performance‐goal orientations. Three‐wave, multisource data were collected from 109 teams at a large North American mortgage company. In a polynomial regression and response surface analytical framework, team task meaningfulness—and subsequent team performance—was enhanced when teams had greater divergence between their learning‐ and performance‐goal orientations but suffered when both goal orientations were more aligned. Our investigation thus revealed the potential pitfalls of teams simultaneously pursuing both learning‐ and performance‐goal orientations. We discuss the theoretical contributions of the team goal orientation incongruence effect substantiated in this study, as well as implications for practice and future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it